LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



tt- ttil lti -Aft"! -5 
, Shelf 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. 



THE ARGUMENT 

OF 

THE BOOK OF JOB 

UNFOLDED. 

By WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D. 
i2mo. #1.75. 

" If it were possible for the inspired volume to rise in our esteem through 
scholarly efforts in its illustration and vindication, it would be accomplished 
by means of this work." — Our Monthly. 

" The entire argument is conducted with ability and great clearness of 
style, to show the place of the Book of Job in the scheme of Holy Scrip- 
ture, and to clear up some of the perplexing problems of God's economy with 
men." — Lutheran Observer. 

" The thanks of the Christian public are due to the scholarly and devout 
Professor W. H. Green, of Princeton, for a modest, but as we think excep- 
tionably valuable, little treatise on the Book of Job." — Congregdtionalist. 

" That ancient composition, so marvellous in beauty and so rich in phi- 
losophy, is here treated in a thoroughly analytical manner, and new depths 
and grander proportions of the divine original portrayed. It is a book to 
stimulate research, and will amply repay the student for all the time h 
occupies in perusal." — Methodist Recorder. 

" It is not a commentary, but a comprehensive exposition of the book as 
a whole, by a ripe scholar." — Albany Evening Journal. 

JUST PUBLISHED BY 

ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 
530 Broadway, New York. 



Moses and the Prophets: 

THE 

OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH, 
By PROF. W. ROBERTSON SMITH; 

THE PROPHETS AND PROPHECY TN ISRAEL, 
By DR. A. KUENEN; 

AND 

THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL, 
By W. ROBERTSON SMITH, LL.D. 

REVIEWED BY 

WILLIAM HENRY 6REEN, D.D., 

PROFESSOR IN PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 



ft 



12 

1 v I 

NEW YORK: 






ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 
530 Broadway. 

1883. 









Copyright, 1882, 
By Robert Carter and Brothers. 



University Press: 
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. 



PREFACE. 



This volume does not pretend to discuss all ques- 
tions pertaining to the Books of Moses and the 
Prophets. It is simply a reprint, with additions, of 
articles in review of the works named in the title, 
which appeared in the " Presbyterian Review," for 
October, 1881, and for January, 1882, and in the 
"Princeton Review," for July, 1878. The last is 
published as originally written, a few pages hav- 
ing been restored which were dropped to bring it 
within smaller compass. The Preliminary Remarks 
were delivered in September, 1881, as the opening 
lecture of the session in Princeton Theological Sem- 
inary. A few paragraphs have been added to the 
article entitled " Professor Robertson Smith on the 
Pentateuch," for the sake of greater fulness or clear- 
ness in the argument. Thus attention is drawn to 
the fact that the alleged diversity of writers in the 
Pentateuch, if it could be proved, would not affect 
its antiquity or authority (p. 46) ; that the Levitical 
Law must have been written as well as enacted in 
the Wilderness (p. 61) ; that Moses could have 



2 PREFACE. 

spoken of his own meekness with no disparage- 
ment to his modesty (p. 61, note) ; that the variant 
phraseology of Leviticus and of Deuteronomy, in re- 
lation to the priests, involves no diversity of author- 
ship or of age ( p. 80, note 2) ; and that there is no 
discrepancy, as is alleged, between Deuteronomy and 
the Levitical Law in relation to the Passover (p. 118, 
note). A separate chapter has also been devoted to 
the Worship in High Places, about which the critics 
hold the most extravagant opinions, and upon which 
they found their principal arguments against the an- 
tiquity of the Laws of the Pentateuch. 

The review of Dr. Robertson Smith's recent Lec- 
tures on the Prophets of Israel is here published for 
the first time. 

If this little book shall serve in any measure to 
confirm the faith or to relieve the perplexities of any 
who have been disturbed by recent critical specula- 
tions, the author's highest wishes on its behalf will 
be realized. With whatever learned ingenuity and 
skill the unfounded speculations may be contrived, 
and with whatever boastful confidence they may be 
put forward, we may rest assured that the estab- 
lished belief of ages will not be unsettled, nor the 
firm foundations of God's Word be overturned. 

Princeton, N. J., August 22d, 1882. 



CONTENTS. 



PREFACE Tage i 

I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
Pages 9-32. 

Novel aspects of the present agitation, 9 ; the first impulse was given 
by English deism, 13; the method of German rationalists, 13; of 
French infidels, 15; of the unbelieving higher criticism, 16; previ- 
ously existing barriers are now removed, 23 ; the peril hence result- 
ing, 27 ; the duty thus made incumbent, 28. 



II. THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 

Pages 33-43. 

The volume characterized in general, 33 ; the text of the Old Testa- 
ment, 34 ; the canon of the Old Testament, 39 ; the meaning of the 
name Jehovah, 42. 



III. PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE PENTATEUCH. 

Pages 44-134- 

The view defended by Professor S., 44 ; history of this hypothesis, 
44 ; its first reception, 48 ; passages in the Pentateuch affirming 
Moses' authorship, 49 ; three groups of laws, 50; extent of the claim 
of authorship, 51 ; this claim cannot be false, 54 ; nor a legal fiction, 
56 and note ; it is confirmed by the language and tenor of the laws, 
57, which shows them to have been both enacted and written in the 
Wilderness, 61 ; Moses' use of the third person, 61 ; and self-lauda- 



CONTENTS. 

tion, note ; no analogous example of legal fiction in the Old Testa- 
ment, 62 ; laws of Deuteronomy incompatible with the reign of 
Josiah, 63 ; direction respecting the future king, note ; the Levitical 
Law not post-exilic, 65 ; it is alleged that the Law cannot all have 
come from Moses, but must be a development, 67 ; but Israel at the 
Exodus not uncivilized nomads, 6S ; little change required in their 
laws, 69 ; necessary changes not prevented by the Mosaic Law, 69 ; 
the different codes are alleged to represent distinct stages in the life 
of the people, 71; fallacy in the method of the critics, 72; no 
discrepancy in relation to the unity of the Sanctuary, 73 ; the 
cities of refuge, 76 note ; nor the priesthood, 76 ; Deuteronomy 
refers to pre-existing laws, and assumes their existence, yy ; distin- 
guishes between priests and Levites, 78 ; its peculiar phraseology 
involves no discrepancy, 80, is found in books which recognize this 
distinction, note 1, and is readily accounted for, note 2 ; no discrep- 
ancy in relation to the provision for the priesthood, 82 note, 83 ; 
other alleged discrepancies, 84 note; traces of the Mosaic Law 
in the subsequent books of the Old Testament, 85 ; Joshua and 
Chronicles arbitrarily excluded, 86; early portion of the period 
of the Judges, 87; later portion of the same period, 90; the car- 
riage of the Ark, 91 note 2 ; extraordinary sacrifices, 94 ; infrequent 
mention of the Sanctuary, 97 ; God's help not limited to His ordi- 
nary methods, 98 ; regularity of ritual subordinated to spiritual obe- 
dience, 99, in the Mosaic history, 100, as in that of the Judges, 
101 ; Samuel's sacrifices, 102 ; David's alleged infractions of the 
Mosaic Law, 105 note ; the worship in high places, 106; the Law of 
Moses in the Books of Kings, 107; the Davidic Psalms, 109; the 
dilemma presented by Ps. xl., no; Hosea affirms the apostasy of 
Israel from a purer worship, 113, and the existence of a written law, 
114 and note ; both he and Amos speak of an elaborate ritual, 115, 
and make numerous and even verbal allusions to the laws of the 
Pentateuch, 116 note; the alleged depreciation of sacrifice by the 
Prophets, 117 ; the Passover in Deuteronomy and the Levitical code, 
118 note ; the other Prophets, 119; Elijah, 119 note 1 ; Isaiah, 119; 
the "pillar " in the land of Egypt, 121 ; Ezekiel claimed on behalf 
of the new hypothesis, 122; general opposing considerations, 123; 
the degradation of the Levites, 127 ; uncircumcised foreigners in 
the Sanctuary, 127 note; priests and Levites distinguished in the 
previous history, 128, though not in Malachi, 128 note ; Ezekiel an 
advance upon the Law, not vice versa, 1 29 ; provision for stated sac- 
rifices, 131 ; purgation of the altar, 131 ; Day of Atonement, 133. 



CONTENTS. 



IV. THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 
Pages 137-169. 

One Sanctuary prior to Samuel and the laws of Moses observed, 137 ; 
significance of the loss of the Ark and the slaughter of the priests, 
139; return and subsequent privacy of the Ark, 141 ; the victory at 
Eben-ezer, 143; plan of the Books of Samuel, 143 note; hopeful 
symptoms destroyed by the rejection of God in asking for a king, 
144 ; Saul disobedient and finally abandoned, 147 ; David's res- 
toration of the Ark, 148 ; considering their estimate of the ark, Is- 
rael's conduct, 149, and that of Samuel, 150, demand an explanation 
which is equally consistent with their knowledge of the whole 
Mosaic Law, 1 53 ; why the Ark was not restored to the Tabernacle of 
Moses, 153; High Places are nowhere sanctioned after Solomon in 
the Books of Kings, 155, in the Psalms or Prophets, 156; Hosea and 
Amos, 157; alleged local sanctuaries, 159, shown not to have been 
such ; no known facts of Israel's worship conflict with the Mosaic 
origin ot the laws of the Pentateuch, 167 ; the Books of Chronicles, 
169. 

V. KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS AND PROPHECY IN 

ISRAEL. 
Pages 173-25 1. 

Attitude of Dr. Kuenen, 173; premature anticipations of Mr. Muir, 
175, and of Dr. Kuenen, 177 ; naturalistic view of prophecy not his- 
torico-critical or organic, 178 ; classification of predictions, 181 ; 
genuineness and date of the prophecies, 182 ; three groups of alleged 
unfulfilled prophecies, 184 ; cities of the Philistines, 184 ; Tyre, 188 ; 
Damascus, 197; Ammon and Moab, 197 ; Edom, 198; Egypt, 200; 
Assyria, 213; objection first, from the slow accomplishment of 
prophecy, and its successive stages, 216 ; objection second, the aveng- 
ing of wrongs done to Israel should precede the loss of Israel's 
national existence, 219 ; Babylon, 223 ; the Book of Daniel, 224 ; 
judgments upon Israel, 230 ; the restoration of Israel, 234 ; the 
Messiah, 236 ; prophecies respecting Israel fulfilled in the Chris- 
tian Church, 240 ; modes of evading those prophecies whose fulfil- 
ment is confessed, 247 ; prophecies in the historical books, 248 ; the 
authority of the New Testament, 250; incredible assumptions 
required by the naturalistic hypothesis, 251. 



CONTENTS. 



VI. DR. W. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE PROPHETS 

OF ISRAEL. 

Pages 255-353. 

The disappointing character of these Lectures, 255 ; divine and human 
elements in Scripture, 257 ; the Lecturer's views of revelation, and 
of the inspiration of the Prophets, 260 ; alleged indifference of 
Elijah to the golden calves, 263 ; this worship not derived from the 
time of the Judges, 264 note ; denounced by preceding Prophets, 
265 ; Elijah's attitude, as conceived by the author of Kings, 266 ; 
his opposition to Baal, 267 ; its political bearings, 268 ; his silence 
no sanction, 269 ; no positive approval of the calves, 270 ; he adores 
the God of the Patriarchs, 270 ; maintains the exclusive godhead 
of Jehovah, 271 ; links Baal and the calves, 271 ; predicts a penalty 
to be inflicted on the worshippers of the calves, 272 ; his visit to 
Horeb, 273; Dr. W. R. Smith's view of the God of Moses, 274, 
overlooks the Ten Commandments, 277, which gave sacredness to 
Sinai, 278, and were contained in the Ark, 280 ; Wellhausen's ob- 
jections to the Mosaic origin of the Decalogue, 281, from (1) Ex. 
xxxiv., 282 ; his critical analysis of Ex. xix.-xxxiv., 283 note ; (2) im- 
age-worship, 288; Kuenen on the Second Commandment, 288, Dill- 
mann, 291, Dr. W. R. Smith, 292, Amos and the calves, 293, Elisha, 
295; (3) Israel's religion originally national, not moral, answered 
by Dr. W. R. Smith, 296 ; (4) Monotheism could not be the basis of 
a national religion, 298; the antiquity of the Ten Commandments, 
298 ; inference respecting Elijah, 299; other deductions, 300; alleged 
separate legal standard of different epochs, 301 ; time of the Judges 
and Samuel, 302 ; Deuteronomy and Leviticus not unknown to the 
narratives of Elijah and Elisha, 303 ; nor Levitical Law to the rest 
of Kings, 306; law of Ex. xx. 24, 310; Mosaic legislation not 
uninfiuential, 313; nor without recognition in the Northern King- 
dom, 315; argument from Deut xxxiii. and Josh, xxiv., 316; ac- 
cording to Hosea and Amos, the Law of Jehovah valid in both 
kingdoms, 317, while dispensed by priests and prophets, 318, 
existed in a permanent form independent of their occasional ut- 
terance of it, and is traced back to the Exodus, 320 ; it enjoined 
duties to men, 321, and to God, 323; prescribed one Sanctuary, 
324; and, so far as appears, embraced the whole of Deuteronomy, 
331, and the Levitical Law, 332 ; it was a written law, 338 ; by 



CONTENTS. 7 

whom written, 341 ; the traditional view, 344; treatment of individ- 
ual Prophets, 346 ; prophetic foresight of Amos and Hosea, 347 • 
alleged conflict of Hosea and Elisha, 348 ; Isaiah and the Prophets 
of Israel, 350 ; accuracy of Isaiah's predictions, 351 ; prophecies 
emptied of their meaning, or eliminated by criticism, 352. 



Page 
Index of Scripture Texts 355 

Addendum to page 149 170 



MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

A LL the signs of the times indicate that the Ameri- 
^ can Church, and, in fact, the whole of Eng- 
lish-speaking Christendom, is upon the eve of an 
agitation upon the vital and fundamental question of 
the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, such as it 
has never known before. The divinity and authority 
of the Scriptures have heretofore been defended 
against the outside world of unbelievers, against pa- 
gans, infidels, and sceptics ; but the question is now 
raised, and the supreme authority of the Scriptures 
contested, within the Church itself. In the contro- 
versies which have agitated the churches of Great 
Britain and of this country heretofore, the infallible 
authority of Scripture has been admitted as the ulti- 
mate test of doctrine by all contending parties. All 
made their appeal to this standard. The settlement of 
every question depended upon its interpretation, or 
upon inferences fairly deducible from it. But now 
the standard is itself brought into question. Utter- 
ances which fill the air on every side, and are borne 
to us from every quarter, — from professors' chairs, 



IO PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

from pulpits, from the religious press, not to speak 
of what is incidentally woven into general literature 
and promiscuous conversation, — show abundantly 
that the burning question of the age is not, What 
does the Bible teach? It is one yet more radical 
and fundamental : What is the Bible ? In what sense 
is it the Word of God? Is it a revelation from Him, 
and divinely authoritative ; or is it to be left to the 
interpreter to say what in it is from God and worthy 
of our faith, and what is the fallible human element 
that may be rejected? This question is approached 
from all sides, and the most diverse and conflicting 
answers have been given. 

It is not a new thing for the Church to have con- 
tests without and within. Our Lord himself said : 
"I came not to send peace on earth, but a, sword/' 
The intrusion of a new principle leads, of necessity, to 
antagonisms, and the strife is not always nor wholly 
an unmixed evil. It is through struggle and contest 
that the truth has won its way, and that godliness is 
purified and strengthened. Nothing is more fatal to 
true progress than stagnation and quiet indifference. 
It is something to have attention roused and interest 
excited, and important subjects narrowly inspected 
from different sides. Discussion results in clearer 
apprehensions, juster views, and a more thorough 
appreciation of all the elements entering into the 
decision of vexed questions than could otherwise be 
attained. 

According to the sacred record, one providential 
reason why the Canaanites were not at once destroyed 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 1 1 

was to teach Israel war. By the conflicts which 
they were obliged to maintain from generation to 
generation, Israel was prevented from falling into 
the supineness, effeminacy, and weakness resulting 
from too great ease and tranquillity. The need of 
vigilance, of self-defence and daring deeds, compelled 
them to develop manly and heroic qualities. Our 
Saviour said to His disciples: "When ye hear of wars 
and rumors of wars, be ye not troubled ; for such 
things must needs be." The outward oppressions to 
which the Church has been subjected, and her inward 
dissensions and conflicts, disastrous as these some- 
times appear upon the surface, have nevertheless inva- 
riably been overruled for good. It is in consequence 
of the vigor with which she has been assailed on every 
side that the defences of Zion have been made so 
strong. The skilful and ingenious advocacy of erro- 
neous views has forced the friends of truth to clearer 
thinking, to more accurate definitions and more cor- 
rect statements of the doctrines of religion. The 
adversary who uncovers a weak point in the reason- 
ings or in the formulated statements of orthodox men, 
really renders them a valuable service by directing 
attention to what is faulty in position or construction, 
and compelling its correction. 

Truth is many-sided and large, and it is by no 
means easy to frame exhaustive statements which 
shall be precisely coincident with the reality at every 
point, — which shall embrace all the facts, and nothing 
but what is fact. It is only by a series of gradual 
approximations that absolutely correct solutions are 



12 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

found of complicated questions. And so long as any 
element of truth has been overlooked, or has not been 
assigned its due place in the system, so long will un- 
guarded points be left open to attack, which an adver- 
sary will be sure to find out. 

This has been the function of heresies and religious 
controversies from the beginning until now. The 
Church has come out of each great conflict with a 
more clearly denned creed, and a better apprehension 
of the truth that has been brought into question; 
and this has thenceforth been a substantial acquisi- 
tion. The creed of evangelical Christendom of the 
present day is made up of articles which have been 
brought to their present accuracy and clearness by 
just this process. From every period of Egyptian 
oppression the Church comes forth laden with rich 
substance. The weapons that have been employed 
against her are converted to her use ; and the intel- 
lectual wealth and resources, developed by her ad- 
versaries, become her own legitimate inheritance. 

The special aspect of the conflict, to which we wish 
to direct attention as now imminent, is the application 
of historical criticism to the Bible by Christian hands, 
and, it may be added, by professedly orthodox Pres- 
byterians claiming adherence to the Westminster 
standards, — the application. of criticism to the Bible 
in a manner to overthrow old established views of 
the authorship of the books of Scripture, of the 
meaning and value of the Bible, of the course and 
character of God's revelation to men. 

This is a reflex wave from German critical specula- 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 1 3 

tion, which is now surging with startling effect upon 
English shores. The first impulse to this movement, 
however, came from England itself, and is traceable 
to the deism of the 17th century, — the deism of 
Hobbes and Tindal, Bolingbroke and Hume. The 
effect of British free-thinking on the continent of 
Europe can be distinctly traced in the writings of the 
time. It is enough for the present to say that the 
combat against the supernatural, which English deists 
conducted on abstract philosophical principles, has 
been since carried forward on three distinct lines with 
direct application to the Bible. Three different 
methods have been employed to eliminate the super- 
natural from the Scriptures. 

The first is that of the old German rationalists, of 
whom Eichhorn in the Old Testament, and Paulus in 
the New, may be mentioned as leaders and represen- 
tatives. The genuineness and credibility of the books 
of the Bible were not impugned ; but a method of 
interpretation was adopted which reduced the miracu- 
lous to the merely marvellous, and predictions to 
vague anticipations or shrewd forecastings of the 
future. The plagues of Egypt, upon this hypothesis, 
were not immediate inflictions, but simply an accu- 
mulation of extraordinary phenomena, the like of 
which, in lower intensity, are of frequent occurrence. 
The passage of the Red Sea was not made possible by 
any divine intervention, but the waters were driven 
back by a high wind which laid the shallows bare. 
The manna was not a direct gift from Heaven, but a 
natural product exuded from a plant still found in the 



14 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

Arabian Peninsula. The Prophets were men of 
remarkable sagacity, who had a clear insight into 
the political combinations of the period and the 
various tendencies then at work, from which they 
were able to divine, with singular accuracy, the 
course of events. Much of the language of the 
Prophets is mere poetic fancy and highly wrought 
emblematic descriptions, whose inspiration is that of 
genius and of the Muses ; but it is not in any special 
sense the very Word of God. 

The difficulty with this method was that it assigned 
to interpretation an impossible task. It is beyond the 
power of hermeneutics to expunge the supernatural 
from the Bible, which is so firmly wrought into it at 
every point that it cannot be separated from it. If the 
genuineness of the sacred writings be conceded, and 
any credit whatever for honesty and truthfulness is 
allowed to the writers, the language which they use 
and the facts which they record cannot be explained 
away. No fair sense can be put upon them which 
will make them consistent with the assumption that 
there has been no departure from the ordinary course 
of nature and the regular operation of its established 
laws. No amount of forcing that can be applied to 
their language, short of completely setting aside its 
obvious meaning, can bring down the miracles, which 
they relate, to the effects of natural causes, or can ac- 
count for the predictions which have been manifestly 
fulfilled without transcending the bounds of the merely 
human. With the most liberal allowance for excited 
fancy and poetical exaggeration, there will still remain 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 15 

so many extraordinary occurrences and remarkable 
coincidences, conspiring to an end previously an- 
nounced, or taking place as was foretold by some 
man of God, that the miracle, which an attempt is 
made to escape in one direction, is nevertheless en- 
countered in another. 

The supernatural cannot be expunged from the 
Bible by the method of interpretation. A second 
method that was tried was that of denying the trust- 
worthiness of the record and the good faith of the 
writers. The seed sown by the English deists pro- 
duced upon French soil a harvest of a different de- 
scription from that which we have just considered. 
To the frivolity and the godlessness of the period, all 
religion was accounted a fraud practised upon the 
masses by a designing and interested priesthood. 
The populace were the dupes of those who imposed 
upon their credulity to accomplish their own selfish 
and ambitious ends. The Prophets and workers of 
miracles were conscious impostors ; the sacred writers 
falsified the truth of history in order to maintain and 
perpetuate the cheat. Thus the scoffing crew of 
Voltaire and his compeers, and the ignoble herd of 
imitators among ourselves, from Thomas Paine to 
Robert Ingersoll. 

The trouble with this theory of deception is that it 
accounts for nothing which it professes to explain, 
while it shocks the moral sense of every thoughtful 
man. In ridding itself of the supernatural in the Bible, 
it sweeps away the supernatural altogether, and ut- 
terly discards the religious element of our nature. It 



1 6 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

imputes all religion to fraud, which is not a satisfac- 
tory explanation even of the Pagan religions ; for the 
frauds, which have been practised in connection with 
them, depended for their success upon a prior belief 
in the supernatural, and could not themselves have 
produced this belief Then the circumstances and 
character of the miracles and the prophecies con- 
tained in the Bible are such that the supposition of 
fraud is preposterous. And that such purity and 
excellence as characterize the religion of the Bible 
could be the work of deceivers, or find its support in 
fraud, is simply inconceivable. The denial of the 
veracity of the record is of all modes of escaping 
from the supernatural the most shallow, and to all 
right-thinking and right-feeling persons it is the most 
offensive. 

The supernatural cannot be abolished by adopting 
some different interpretation of the Bible which shall 
bring all its contents down to a level with the opera- 
tions of natural laws, nor by casting imputations 
upon the honesty and truthfulness of the sacred 
writers and thus discrediting their narrative. But 
one resource remains. It is the method of what has 
been denominated the higher criticism. The gen- 
uineness of the sacred writings is called in question. 
It is freely confessed that the writers of Scripture really 
meant to affirm that miracles were actually wrought 
and that prophecies were uttered. At the same time 
no charge of dishonesty is brought against them ; 
they doubtless believed themselves that these super- 
natural events which they record really took place. 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. IJ 

But such a length of time had intervened that legend- 
ary stories had grown to supernatural proportions, 
and the writers have simply transmitted to us the 
mistaken belief of their own times. It is claimed 
that the miracles of the Bible are not attested by eye- 
witnesses and contemporaries, but by persons living 
in an age long subsequent to their alleged occur- 
rence ; and that the prophecies, so called, were not 
committed to writing until after the events in which 
they have been thought to be fulfilled. The age and 
authorship traditionally ascribed to them are not cor- 
rect ; a critical examination shows that they must be 
referred to quite a different origin. 

No objection can be made to the demand that the 
sacred writings should be subjected to the same criti- 
cal tests as other literary productions of antiquity. 
When were they written, and by whom ? For whom 
were they intended, and with what end in view ? These 
are questions that may fairly be asked respecting the 
several books of the Bible, as respecting other books, 
and the same criteria that are applicable in the one case 
are applicable likewise in the other. Every produc- 
tion of any age bears the stamp of that age. It takes 
its shape from influences then at work. It is part of 
the life of the period, and can only be properly esti- 
mated and understood from being viewed in its origi- 
nal connections. Its language will be the language 
of the time when it was produced. The subject, the 
style of thought, the local and personal allusions, will 
have relation to the circumstances of the period, to 
which in fact the whole and every part of it must 



1 8 PRELIMINAR Y REMARKS. 

have its adaptation, and which must have their right- 
ful place in determining its true explanation. 

Inspiration has no tendency to obliterate those dis- 
tinctive qualities and characteristics which link men 
to their own age. It is as true of Paul and Isaiah as 
it is of Plato and Virgil, that their intellectual life and 
writings received a peculiar impress from their sur- 
roundings. It is by the application of this principle 
that literary forgeries are detected. The attempt to 
palm off one's own production as the work of one of a 
different age, and subject to different conditions, is rare- 
ly successful. In spite of every precaution, something 
will leak out to betray the fact that the real circum- 
stances of its origin are different from those that are 
pretended. If now inspired writings, like others, are 
in all their literary aspects the outgrowth of their 
own age, then the most thorough scrutiny can but 
confirm our faith in their real origin ; and if in any 
instance the view commonly entertained of their ori- 
gin or authorship is incorrect in any particular, the 
critical study which detects the error, and assigns 
each writing to its proper time and place, can only 
conduce to its being better understood and more 
accurately appreciated. 

But, in applying the principles and methods of 
literary criticism to the books of the Bible, it must 
be borne in mind that these books have a character 
peculiarly their own, as a revelation from God ; and 
a criticism which denies this at the outset, and con- 
ducts all its investigations upon this presumption, is 
under a bias which must necessarily lead to false 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 1 9 

conclusions. There is a Biblical criticism which is 
born of unbelief, and there is a Biblical criticism 
which has sprung from a reverent faith in the Divine 
Word ; and it is not surprising that, proceeding from 
such opposite principles, they arrive at totally dif- 
ferent results. 

It is not necessary, in order to vitiate its conclu- 
sions, that the unbelieving criticism should formally 
proclaim the principles on which it proceeds, and the 
assumptions which lie at the basis of all its investiga- 
tions. These are no less real, however, for not being 
announced, and for being hidden under a show of a 
strictly scientific procedure, by which they who 
conduct it may be themselves deceived. The latent 
principle which guides and controls throughout is, 
nevertheless, the elimination of the supernatural from 
the Bible. The problem to which it addresses itself 
is : How can this result be most effectually secured, 
and by the most plausible method? 

That this is really the animus of the movement can 
be sufficiently shown by a survey of the various hy- 
potheses which have been successively broached, and 
the arguments by which they have been defended. 
The only thing common to them all is the end at 
which they arrive ; but this is reached by the most 
various and opposite routes. They universally agree 
in so dealing with the different books of Scripture 
that their testimony to the actual occurrence of mir- 
acles and the utterance of real prophecies shall be 
discredited and nullified ; but in the method by 
which this result Is reached in individual cases there 



20 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

is endless discord and disagreement, so that the most 
effectual reply to these various hypotheses often is to 
set them over against one another and exhibit their mu- 
tual contrariety. In every instance in which the com- 
mon result can be attained by a diversity of method, 
we find these different methods employed by one or 
another of the critics. If the supernatural can be re- 
moved in a given case by a process of interpretation 
in the judgment of any critic, this method will be 
adopted, and the genuineness of the writing which 
contains it will be left unassailed ; and any arguments 
that may have been advanced by others to set it aside 
will be pronounced inconclusive. Other critics em- 
ployed upon the very same passage, and deeming 
this method ineffectual, maintain the charge of spu- 
riousness with arguments adapted to the purpose, 
but just to the length that to their individual judg- 
ment seems necessary to compass their end. Where 
some are satisfied with removing a word or a clause 
from the text, others make bold to cast away para- 
graphs, or the entire writing in which they are found ; 
and the arguments for retention or rejection, while 
apparently satisfactory to each critic's own mind, fail 
to convince his fellows. So that it is difficult to re- 
sist the conclusion that the validity of the arguments 
employed rests, after all, upon the end to be effected ; 
and that criteria of like nature and of equal weight 
are admitted here and discredited there, according to 
the varying exigencies of the hypothesis which the 
critic is maintaining. 

There is accordingly an unbelieving criticism which 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 2 1 

may not openly avow its unbelief, or professedly make 
this the basis of its action, but nevertheless is practi- 
cally governed in its course and its issues by radical 
principles that are at war with divine revelation ; and 
there is a believing criticism framed under the oppo- 
site principle, of the reality of the supernatural reve- 
lation given in the Scriptures. A sense of the need 
of a divine salvation, and a conviction that the salva- 
tion set forth in the gospel of Christ meets this press- 
ing necessity of the individual soul and of all men as 
it is not and cannot be met elsewhere, produces an 
inward persuasion of the truth and divinity of the 
Scriptures that cannot be set aside. He who ap- 
proaches them in this state of mind, instead of being 
offended by the immediate divine interventions there- 
in recorded, and being under a temptation to deny 
their reality or to explain them away, is prepared to 
accept them, on proper evidence, as kindred to or 
prognostic of that supreme act of immediate divine 
interference which achieved the world's redemption. 

What the one style of criticism is thus under a con- 
stant bias to set aside as unreal and untrue, the other 
is prepared to accept without difficulty, whenever it 
is properly attested. The latter consequently dis- 
putes the legitimacy of the entire process upon which 
the unbelieving criticism effects its work of negation 
and destruction. The antecedent presumption that 
all testimony which confirms the reality of miracles 
and prophecy must necessarily be false, leads to the 
suspicion that the records containing this testimony 
must be spurious, and to the admission of criteria of 



2 2 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

spuriousness which would not have been entertained 
but for this previous suspicion. Ingenious and appar- 
ently formidable arguments are derived from a minute 
and elaborate investigation of points of diction, of 
style and language, of aim and tendency; and con- 
clusions of the most serious nature are built on these 
fine-spun arguments, which lie after all wholly in the 
region of hypothesis, which have no proof from estab- 
lished facts and no basis in known historical data, but 
are so dexterously contrived as to avoid collision as 
far as possible with what is indisputable ; and thus, on 
the ground of what is purely conjectural, it is proposed 
to revolutionize what has always been credibly be- 
lieved and is supported by an authority which these 
ingenious processes cannot after all invalidate. 

What has, now been said casts no reflection upon 
the motives or the honesty of individual critics. It 
relates simply to systems and methods of criticism as 
such. The opposite spirit of these two systems is 
unmistakable ; but it does not follow that each individ- 
ual critic is aware of, much less that he is invariably 
penetrated by, the spirit of the system to which he 
has addicted himself. Earnest believers may be 
ensnared by the specious character of the arguments 
employed by an unbelieving criticism, and may not be 
able to emancipate themselves from its power and 
hence may adopt its conclusions ; just as Christians 
may be living under a Pagan civilization, or Pagans 
may be living under a Christian civilization, — the sys- 
tem to which they are attached being the outgrowth 
of principles most opposite to those which they in- 



PRELIMINAR Y REMARKS. 2 3 

wardly adopt, whether they are themselves sensible 
of this contrariety or not. 

The peculiarity of the present crisis, to which we 
have already adverted, does not consist merely in the 
fact that critical assaults are made upon the genuine- 
ness and integrity of the books of the Bible. Such 
assaults have been repeatedly made, and have been 
conducted with great ingenuity and supported by 
great learning ; but the war has hitherto been re- 
mote from our shores, only faint echoes of the distant 
conflict reached our ears, and it awakened little 
interest or attention among us. The evangelical 
churches of Great Britain and America have to a 
great extent been secluded from these critical con- 
tests. They have scarcely been affected by the agi- 
tation which struggles of this nature have produced in 
Germany, which has been their chief seat and fountain- 
head during the present century ; and the impor- 
tance and serious nature of these conflicts have 
scarcely been appreciated among us. We have not 
only been sheltered by the remoteness of our position, 
and by the barrier which a difference of language has 
interposed, but also, and still more, by the absence of 
any general or widespread sympathy with the theo- 
logical bias which these various critical hypotheses 
betrayed. Religious thought among us was actively 
turned in quite a different direction. Questions of 
doctrine, of ecclesiastical organization, or of practical 
religious life were eagerly discussed ; these absorbed 
the energies of leading minds and engaged the atten- 
tion of the religious public. These discussions were 



24 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

conducted on the acknowledged basis of the divine 
authority of the Scriptures. Their integrity and gen- 
uineness were regarded as settled beyond dispute. 

Some knowledge was indeed maintained of the 
critical battles which were waging in Germany ; but 
the questions which these raised were not living prac- 
tical issues among ourselves. They were conse- 
quently looked upon as ingenious disputations about 
matters with which we were but little concerned, 
and which had little intrinsic probability as judged 
by Anglo-Saxon common sense ; and which, more- 
over, were urged in the interest of a disbelief in the 
divine original of the Scriptures, which had gained 
small lodgment in this quarter. 

The various hypotheses which followed one another 
in quick succession in Germany, each having its brief 
day of popularity while it was in the ascendant, 
scarcely found their way here to the public eye, 
through the medium of translations or by transfusion 
in our current literature, before they were already 
antiquated in Germany itself, thrust aside by some 
more recent and popular novelty, or thoroughly and 
satisfactorily answered by noble champions of the 
faith, through whose learned labors Germany was 
constantly building up a believing Biblical criticism, 
to match and overturn the unbelieving criticism of 
which it was likewise the prolific hive ; and thus 
the poison found its antidote already prepared by the 
time it had reached our shores. 

Now however, by a natural reaction perhaps, the 
period of theological controversy among us seems to 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 25 

be yielding to one of doctrinal indifTerentism. Ques- 
tions affecting the Trinity, the atonement, human 
ability, the parity of the ministry, the mode of bap- 
tism, which have agitated the Christian community by 
strifes between different denominations, or different 
factions in the same denomination, no longer engage 
public attention to anything like the same extent. 
People are growing impatient of doctrinal and eccle- 
siastical dissensions, and the tendency of the times is 
rather toward a Broad Church liberalism, and sinking 
the differences between hitherto discordant bodies in 
a more catholic fellowship, if not organic union. 

We do not pause here to discuss this prevalent and 
growing tendency, nor to distinguish the elements of 
good and evil that enter into it. We simply remark 
upon its existence as an obvious fact, characteristic 
of the present in contrast with the recent past. 

And concurrently with this indifference to doctrinal 
distinctions there has arisen a weakening of the strict 
religious sentiment which has heretofore pervaded the 
Christian community. There is not the same rever- 
ence for the absolute authority of Scripture, nor the 
same sense of the imperative need of the objective su- 
pernatural salvation which it reveals. The distinctive 
doctrines of grace are less urgently and prominently 
set forth in the instructions of the pulpit. In various 
prominent and influential quarters the shallow and self- 
sufficient view of man's estate is coming to be more 
and more distinctly formulated, which finds in men's 
moral instincts an adequate guide, and which looks 
to the forces of human nature to work out its own 
salvation. 



26 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

We have now reached a juncture when the general 
sense of the need of infallible guidance in the Script- 
ures has been somewhat shaken by a growing con- 
fidence in men's own powers, and the fact of that 
infallible guidance has been assailed from the most 
diverse quarters ; when students of physical science 
claim that the facts of nature are irreconcilable with 
the Bible account of the creation, the flood, and the 
dispersion of the human race ; when antiquarians 
affirm that the monumental records of Egypt or of 
Assyria are in conflict with the alleged facts of the 
sacred history ; when philosophers, who have made 
a study of Comparative Religion, deny that there is 
anything of consequence in the religion of the Bible 
which does not find illustrative parallels elsewhere 
and cannot be accounted for on purely natural 
principles ; when moralists bring into question its 
solutions of moral problems and challenge its al- 
leged divine decisions as indefensible ; when social- 
istic schemers oppose the Bible because it stands 
in the way of their disorganizing theories ; and the 
wayward heart is now as ever restive under its re- 
straints and penalties, and ready to avail itself of 
any pretext to escape them. The antagonism di- 
rected against the divine infallible authority of the 
Bible from these and other quarters, while it does not 
shake the citadel of its strength, nevertheless has by 
persistent repetition had its influence on the public 
mind. Doubts and insinuations are freely uttered by 
those who venture on no positive assertions discredit- 
ing the Scriptures. And even professed friends of 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 2J 

the Bible have said that there must be some abate- 
ment of its claims and some modification of its 
defences, that something must be yielded to its 
antagonists in the hope of saving what remains. 

In this condition of things, induced by the causes 
now described, doubts and misgivings, from alleged 
critical discoveries, find an opportunity for lodgment 
such as has not existed in the Christian community 
of Great Britain and America at any former period. 
Hence the peculiar peril of the position in which the 
Church in these lands finds itself at this moment, 
and of which the case of Prof. Robertson Smith, in 
the Free Church of Scotland, is one of the most 
characteristic and illustrative incidents. The barriers 
of distance and of language, in which we found our 
safety from the critical battles that have raged in 
Germany, are suddenly thrown down and the conflict 
is at once transported to our own shores, with no 
interposed check or hindrance, and in the very acme 
of the struggle. 

The particular critical hypothesis, which has within 
the last few years risen to a sudden popularity and 
just now is in the ascendant, met with no favor what- 
ever when it was first suggested less than fifty years 
ago. In falling in with this novel scheme the Biblical 
critics have reversed all their previous hypotheses as 
suddenly and completely as was done a few years 
since by natural philosophers in their hypothesis of 
the origin of man, — when from disputing the unity of 
the human race and the possibility that the several 
races of mankind could have sprung from a common 



28 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

source, they suddenly swung to the opposite extreme 
of maintaining a common origin not only for men 
but for the inferior animals as well. 

The adoption of these views would be attended 
with very far-reaching consequences. It would ren- 
der necessary a complete reconstruction of Old Tes- 
tament history ; it would alter our views entirely as 
to the mode and the nature of God's revelation to 
Israel. It would compel a revision of the question : 
In what sense can the Scriptures be regarded as the 
Word of God, and what measure of authority can be 
attributed to them? 

We are thus, by the necessity of the case, set to 
grappling with the most fundamental inquiries. We 
must dig down to the very foundations, and re-ex- 
amine the basis upon which our Christian faith re- 
poses. And this necessity is not laid upon us a whit 
too soon. It is providentially ordered that at this 
very time, when a lax theology is drifting away from 
the strict standard of the Scriptures, and is disposed 
to govern its faith by the moral intuitions of men 
rather than by the positive statements of the Word of 
God, we should be summoned to a most thorough 
sifting of this whole matter, — that we should be 
driven to a most minute and thorough inspection of 
the inspired volume, and' led to employ the most 
searching tests that can be applied to it, in order to 
discover whether it really is what it has hitherto been 
credited to be. 

It is under the circumstances just recited that we 
are now living, and they speak to us in tones which 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 29 

should not be disregarded. The soldier is expected 
faithfully to execute his drill and evolutions, and to 
train himself in all the martial exercises demanded of 
him, even in times of profound peace, in order that 
he may gain the knowledge and practised skill which 
properly belong to his vocation. But a new respon- 
sibility rests upon him in time of actual war ; there is 
a fresh demand for diligence when he may soon be 
summoned to the field of strife, and the issue of the 
conflict turn upon the valor and dexterity of the 
troops engaged. 

The venerable Dr. Hodge, who was for nearly 
threescore years the glory and the strength of Prince- 
ton Seminary, was called upon for some remarks in 
the Week of Prayer at the beginning, I think, of the 
last year of his life. The subject before the meeting 
was the Conversion of the World. It was his habit on 
such occasions to present a cheering view derived 
from the progress which the Gospel had made or was 
making, or from the accomplished work of redemp- 
tion which is the assured basis of the world's salva- 
tion, or the unfailing promises of God which make 
the issue certain ; but at the time referred to he 
recited, in long and formidable array, the various 
forms of opposition which are directed against the 
Gospel within the bounds of Christendom itself, — 
the materialistic philosophy, the oppositions of science, 
the socialistic excesses, and showed in what various 
ways unsanctificd learning, power and influence in 
irreligious hands, and unchristianized masses stand as 
barriers to the progress of truth and holiness. His 



3<D PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

aim was not to discourage, but to present a truthful 
and sober view of the actual aspect of the world, and 
of the forces which are at war against the progress 
of the Gospel. It was the trumpet-call of the veteran, 
who had fought his battles and won his victories, sum- 
moning new recruits to the Holy War, and uttering 
loud notes of warning, that the strife was by no 
means ended, that there are many and fierce battles 
yet to fight, and that others must take up the weapons 
which he was laying down. 

We are coming now, as it would seem, to the cul- 
mination of the struggle. The battle rages around 
the citadel. No drones or cowards are wanted now. 
It is not the incompetent and the unfaithful who can 
serve the Church in such a crisis. She can well 
afford to spare the idlers and stragglers and faint- 
hearted from her ranks. The times emphatically 
demand those who shall be prepared to acquit them- 
selves like men. 

He has a very low conception of the work of the 
ministry, of the solemn duties and the momentous 
responsibilities which it involves, who can suffer him- 
self to be slack and negligent in his preparation for 
it, or inactive and half-hearted in his discharge of it. 
And he gives little evidence of being called of God 
to the office, and little prospect of usefulness and 
success in it, who does not engage, whether in his 
preparatory studies or in the actual labors of the 
ministry, with a holy enthusiasm, throwing himself 
into them with all the energy of his nature, — resolved 
by the aids of divine grace to make the most of the 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 31 

powers and faculties which God has given him in the 
special line of this high calling ; seizing with eager- 
ness every opportunity within his reach, and training 
himself by all available methods to the highest meas- 
ure of fitness he can secure to be entrusted with 
the care of souls, to be an ambassador of God to 
men, to be a steward of the mysteries of the King- 
dom of Heaven. If a charge so weighty and so 
sacred as this will not stir the energies of a man to 
the utmost, the least that can be said is, that he shows 
that he has no appreciation of this high and holy 
office, and no fitness for it. 

But besides this general demand which is always 
laid upon all ministers and all candidates for the 
ministry, to use the utmost zeal in the whole round 
of their professional or preparatory studies, there is a 
call to special diligence and thoroughness now in the 
circumstances which have already been recited. If 
supineness were ever admissible, there is a loud call 
for alertness at the present time. There is a de- 
mand now, as never before, for high Biblical scholar- 
ship, for well-trained exegetes and critics, — for men 
well versed in the critical and speculative attacks made 
upon the Word of God, and who are well prepared 
to defend it. The present phases of critical and 
speculative assault upon the Scriptures need create 
no alarm, as though they were more formidable than 
their predecessors ; but though these should be 
repulsed and prove short-lived, that will not end the 
strife. The assault will be renewed at some fresh 
point, or in some other form. And now that the 



32 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

critical battle is brought to our own doors, it will not 
do to wait till defenders of the faith in other lands 
work out a solution for us. We must have an Eng- 
lish and American scholarship that is fitted to grapple 
with these questions as they arise. We need, in the 
ranks of the pastorate, men who can conduct Biblical 
researches and who can prosecute learned critical 
inquiries ; who can do, in their own chosen field of 
Scripture study, what German evangelical pastors 
have done, — such as Baehr in his " Symbolism of the 
Mosaic Cultus," and Ranke in the critical defence of 
the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and Fuller in the 
interpretation of the Prophet Daniel, and Keil, who 
published his learned defence of the books of Chron- 
icles and Ezra when he was only a licentiate. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH 

CHURCH. 1 

' I ^HESE lectures, originally prepared for popular 
■*■ delivery, are eminently adapted for their pur- 
pose. Their author has a remarkable faculty for 
presenting subjects, that are commonly regarded as 
dry and technical, in a lucid and attractive manner, 
— with such clearness of statement, such aptness of 
illustration, and such a close logical connection from 
first to last, that the interest is maintained to the end, 
and his readers cannot fail to gain a satisfactory com- 
prehension of the conclusions reached, and the gen- 
eral nature of the grounds upon which they rest. No 
one can rise from the perusal of this volume without 
a high respect for the learning and ability of the 
author, and a profound impression that Biblical Criti- 
cism offers a very wide and important field for study; 
an impression that will be deepened in most minds, 
probably, by the startling character of some of the 
opinions here confidently announced, as though they 
were the undoubted results of the latest and most 
thorough scholarship. It is exceedingly unfortunate 
that a volume which has so many excellent points, 

1 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church : twelve lectures on 
Biblical Criticism. By W. Robertson Smith, M. A. New York : 
D. Appleton & Co. 1881. i2mo, pp. 446. 



34 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

and which, from the peculiar circumstances attending 
its publication, naturally attracts so much attention, 
does not discriminate between facts and theories ; but 
— after the method of the German critics, who must 
speak oracularly, if at all, and to whom the self-con- 
sistency of an ingenious hypothesis sufficiently recom- 
mends it, in the absence of any evidence to support 
it — the purely conjectural is propounded as though 
it were of the same unquestionable certainty with that 
which is really known. 

These lectures throughout challenge the accuracy 
of the Jewish transmission of the Old Testament in 
respect to its text, its canon, and the constitution of 
its separate books. The train of investigation pur- 
sued relative to these various points opens questions 
of the highest consequence, both bringing to light a 
large amount of valuable information, and suggesting 
lines of inquiry that still remain to be explored ; 
nevertheless, from the deplorable fault already alluded 
to, it is so conducted as to leave an exaggerated or 
thoroughly false impression. 

It is readily conceded that, notwithstanding the 
substantial unanimity of Hebrew manuscripts, the 
Masoretic text is not immaculate. There are some 
obvious mistakes, in certain books, which prove this ; 
and the discrepancies in various parallel passages, and 
the incompleteness of a few acrostic poems, though 
largely explicable otherwise, may be partly due to 
faulty transcription. But it is an immense and un- 
warranted stride from these premises to the assump- 
tion that — though the Hebrew text, as it existed in the 



IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 35 

first Christian century has been transmitted with un- 
paralleled precision — " in earlier ages Hebrew MSS. 
differed as much as, or more than, MSS. of the New 
Testament " (p. 73). The allegation (p. 78), "that the 
early guardians of the text did not hesitate to make 
small changes in order to remove expressions which 
they thought unedifying," is wholly unfounded. Of 
the eighteen so-called Tikkilne SopJierim (Corrections 
of the Scribes) which are adduced in proof, Professor 
Smith himself admits that fifteen are irrelevant. The 
fact is that, in the judgment of the best critics, the 
entire series are mere rabbinical conceits, and warrant 
no suspicion whatever of any tampering with the text. 
Ishbosheth may be a contemptuous nickname which 
the son of Saul " would never have consented to 
bear ; " but who can certify us that it was not current 
in the rival kingdom during his lifetime, or that it 
was not so written by the author of the Books of 
Samuel, but was an alteration by some copyist in 
later times? The forced interpretations, which the 
scribes confessedly put upon the Law, 1 are no evidence 
that they wilfully changed the written text, but the 
reverse ; if the Law could have been accommodated 
to their usages by altering its expressions, they would 

1 The censure impliedly cast on the author of the Books of Chroni- 
cles (p. 64) is quite gratuitous. King Joash directed a temporary as- 
sessment from year to year for the repair of the Temple, and fixed its 
rate by the example of Moses. (Note that the italic words in the Eng- 
lish version of 11. Chron. xxiv. 6, form no part of the text.) It is hard 
to see what this has to do with a voluntary arrangement in the time of 
Nehemiah for a different purpose, or how it appears that the Chroni- 
cler was under a mistake about it. 



36 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

have been under no temptation to do violence to its 
language. It is puzzling to account for the concur- 
rence of all existing manuscripts in obvious mistakes, 
or in such an arbitrary notation as the extraordinary- 
points, suspended letters, and the like ; but there is 
nothing to require or to justify the assumption of " a 
rigorous suppression of discordant copies " (p. 75), or 
of a serious dissonance at any time among Hebrew 
manuscripts. 

Professor Smith complains (p. 74) that our present 
Old Testament text cannot be traced back beyond 
the fall of the Jewish State. This is to be regretted, 
doubtless ; but it is simply due to the lack of any 
adequate sources of information. If, as he says of the 
antecedent period (p. 98), " there is not a particle of 
evidence that there was a uniform Palestinian text," 
and its existence is " a pure hypothesis," neither is 
there, on the other hand, a particle of evidence of a 
discrepant text at all approaching the " variations and 
corruptions found in MSS. of the New Testament." 
This too is a pure hypothesis, only with the difference 
that all the probabilities and the inferences deducible 
from known facts are against it, and establish beyond 
reasonable doubt that there never was any wide di- 
vergence of manuscripts, and that we now possess a 
text which is not indeed absolutely faultless, but yet 
substantially and even astonishingly accurate. 

The only accessible witnesses to the state of the 
text in the pre-Christian period, outside of the line of 
Palestine tradition, are the Samaritan Pentateuch and 
the Septuagint version. Gesenius's careful analysis of 



IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 37 

the former has put an end to all thought of correcting 
the Hebrew text by the Samaritan ; and the variant 
"ages assigned to the patriarchs " (p. 73) are clearly- 
due to systematic and intentional alteration and not 
to the errors of transcribers ; they must therefore be 
classed with the arbitrary changes characteristic of the 
Samaritan recension. We are very far from any dis- 
position to undervalue the Septuagint, or to refuse 
such critical aid as can fairly and legitimately be 
derived from it. Let it be noted that the question 
between the Masoretic and the Septuagint text is one 
of form rather than substance. If the latter were to 
be substituted for the former throughout, which Pro- 
fessor Smith is very far from proposing, it would in- 
volve no peril to the Christian faith. This may be 
fairly inferred from the free use made of the Septu- 
agint by the inspired writers of the New Testament ; 
and it would be difficult to point out any appreciable 
change that would have resulted in the belief of the 
early Greek Church, had the Fathers been conversant 
with Hebrew instead of being limited in the Old Tes- 
tament to the use of the Septuagint. The matter in- 
volved is simply verbal precision and minute textual 
accuracy. 

And here the Professor correctly informs us that — 
in consequence of mistakes of the translators x (p. 87), 
the license which they allowed themselves in various 

1 Prof. W. R. Smith gratuitously links copyists with translators, as 
though the former took the same liberties with the text as the latter; 
but the cases are not analogous. Translation naturally led to eluci- 
dation, while the work of the scribe was simply to reproduce word for 
word and letter for letter. 



38 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ways (pp. 88-90), and the manifold corruptions that 
have since crept into the text of the Septuagint 
(p. 103), — "it is an- affair of the most delicate schol- 
arship to make profitable use of the Alexandrian 
version for the confirmation or emendation of the 
Hebrew." The statement that the " readings of the 
Septuagint offer a fair measure of the limits of varia- 
tion in the early history of the text " must accordingly 
be taken with very large abatement ; and the formula, 
by which it is proposed to determine which reading is 
to be preferred in the illustrations given (p. 90), viz. 
"in cases of this sort the shorter text is obviously the 
original," is by no means so settled a rule, or of so wide 
application, as the Professor would have us believe. 

In its application to the book of Jeremiah, it is par- 
ticularly unfortunate, as the elaborate discussion of 
Wichelhaus abundantly shows. On this point we will 
not venture to quote Keil, whose unfavorable judg- 
ment of the Septuagint text is so summarily set aside 
(p. 85). But Graf, the corypliceus of the latest critical 
speculations, will perhaps be heard with more respect. 
After a careful comparison of the Greek and Hebrew 
text of Jeremiah, he says, in the Introduction to his 
Commentary (p. li.), " after what has now been shown 
there can no longer be any doubt that the form of the 
text yielded by the Greek translator is a mutilated 
and corrupted one, which arose out of the text pre- 
served to us in the Hebrew, and at a much later time." 
This is the more noteworthy as he tells us ( Vorwort, 
p. ix.) : " I began the work with the most favorable 
opinion of the Septuagint, but was soon led to the 



IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 39 

opposite view by the convincing power of the facts," 
which satisfied him that " the suspicion which has been 
expressed against the genuineness of certain passages 
in the book, particularly the prophecy respecting 
Babylon, chaps. 1. li. [which Prof. W. R. Smith appears 
to be prepared to surrender, pp. 112, 121], as well as 
the hypothesis of a double recension of the book, 
which has obtained almost universal prevalence in 
recent times, is utterly without foundation." And 
Delitzsch, who is certainly indulgent enough in ques- 
tions of criticism, says of " the transpositions occur- 
ring in the Book of Proverbs," to which our author 
also refers (pp. 121, 122) : " These remind one of the 
transpositions in Jeremiah, and rest, as they do, upon 
a mistake as to the true relations of the subject- 
matter," {SpriLchbiich, p. 39.) And Jeremiah, ch.xxvii., 
which is adduced to exemplify the superiority of the 
Greek text, affords a signal proof of the reverse ; for 
ver. 7, whose presence in the Hebrew and absence 
from the Greek is one of the points remarked upon 
(p. 115), was certainly in the text when Chronicles 
was written, as appears from the manifest allusion to 
it, II Chron. xxxvi. 20. 

The obscurity which overhangs the final collection 
and arrangement of the Old Testament canon, opens 
a fresh opportunity for theorizing, in which a modi- 
cum of facts is mingled with a-large infusion of doubt- 
ful conjectures. The presence of apocryphal books 
and sections in the Septuagint is appealed to in evi- 
dence that the extent of the canon was fluctuating and 
uncertain, while yet Professor Smith confesses that 



40 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

these books have no proper claim to be regarded as 
canonical, and that they never were accepted as such 
by the Jews in Alexandria or elsewhere. They were 
valued as aids to religious edification, but not es- 
teemed authoritative. His notion of the process by 
which the Old Testament was gradually brought to 
its present compass is substantially as follows. The 
canon of Ezra was the Pentateuch alone. The divine 
authority of the Prophets was recognized, but only 
as books for private edification. There was no stand- 
ard edition of individual Prophets, and no fixed col- 
lection of the Prophets as a whole, till their use in the 
public worship of the synagogue made it necessary 
at a comparatively late date. It already existed " in 
the time of Daniel" (Dan. ix. 2), that is, as may be 
inferred from a critical opinion cited with apparent 
approbation on p. 168, the period of the Maccabees. 
" The Psalter, the hymn-book of the second temple," 
did not reach its finished form till a still later date, 
and was added subsequently, together with Job and 
Proverbs. This is the undisputed portion of the 
canon, whose authority has always been practically 
acknowledged, and to which the sanction of the 
New Testament is given. The remainder of the Ha- 
giographa is the region of the antilegomena, books 
whose authority was more or less contested, but 
which gradually worked their way to canonical re- 
cognition, though the full and final settlement in 
their favor was not reached till the end of the first 
Christian century. And he thinks it matter of thank- 
fulness that the determination of the canon was 



IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 41 

not made sooner, or " the principles of the Scribes 
and Pharisees " would have led to a most unsatisfac- 
tory result. 

It will not be necessary to review the whole course 
of this discussion. It is enough to refer to one out- 
standing fact, which cannot be set aside. The ex- 
press testimony of Josephus assures us that the 
twenty-two books of the Jewish canon, which are 
universally admitted to be identical with the present 
Hebrew Bible, constituted a determinate body of 
writings " justly believed to be divine," and which 
had been for ages sundered from all other books and 
ranked above them. This statement of Josephus, 
whatever question may be raised about its accuracy 
in details, unquestionably represents the current be- 
lief of his time. And this is utterly inconsistent with 
a canon still fluctuating during the life of our Lord 
and His Apostles. The Scriptures to which they make 
their appeal were the Old Testament as we now have 
it, as well defined and settled as it is at present. The 
case is no more affected by the disputes in Jewish 
schools, than the canonicity of the Epistle of James 
is shaken by the doubts expressed by Luther. These 
casuistical questionings — or, as they might rather for 
the most part be called, these contests of rabbinical 
subtlety — did not touch the historic basis on which 
the canon rested ; and such as they were, they were 
directed not merely against Esther, Canticles, and 
Ecclesiastes, t>ut, as Prof. W. R. Smith has to allow, 
against what he calls the undisputed portion of the 
canon likewise, e.g., Ezekiel (p. 410) and Proverbs 



42 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

(p. 170). And the omission of Esther from the cata- 
logue of Melito in the second century, and from those 
of Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth, 
certainly lends no support to the Professor's view; 
for, on his own showing, the canon was then settled 
and Esther was in it. 

The most significant discussion in the volume be- 
fore us, however, and that for which all that preceded 
was designed to pave the way, is that concerning the 
constitution and date of the Pentateuch. This cannot 
be considered at the close of a notice already suffi- 
ciently extended, but must be treated in a separate 
article. 

In conclusion, we are compelled to say that the 
Professor, with all his brilliancy and learning, seems 
to be deficient in well-balanced judgment. How 
easily he is misled by the ignis fatuus of novel and 
ingenious speculations, conspicuously appears from 
his adoption of the whimsical conceit that Jehovah 
means "He who cattses rain or lightning to fall upon 
the earth" (p. 423). This is not only giving the 
preference to a rare and somewhat doubtful meaning 
of the verbal root, above that which it uniformly has 
everywhere except in a single poetical passage (Job 
xxxvii. 6), — and a meaning which, if allowed, con- 
tains in itself no special reference to rain or lightning, 
but would more naturally, when other derivations are 
taken into the account, suggest the sense "Hewhocatises 
to fall to destruction and ruin," i. e. y the Destroyer, — 
but it involves an amazing lack of apprehension of 
what is really characteristic of the religion of Israel, 



IN THE JEWISH CHURCH. 43 

to imagine that the one name of God, in which this 
religion reaches its highest expression of the object 
of worship, could possibly mean nothing more than 
the Giver of Rain. If the profound meaning sanc- 
tioned Ex. iii. 14, and adopted by the best philolo- 
gists, was to be discredited at all hazards, the 
suggestion of Kuenen and others, " He who causes to 
be" i. e. y the Creator, would have vastly more in its 
favor. And if a crude notion of the Deity was per- 
force to be wrung out of the Israelitish conception, 
there would be more plausibility in the allegation, 
baseless as it is, that light and fire, which are such 
frequent emblems of the divine being or attributes, 
gave shape to their earliest thoughts of the Most 
High, than that they thought of Him simply as the 
One who made it rain. 



PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE 
PENTATEUCH. 

T3ROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH tells us, 
•*- on p. 216 of his recently published lectures on 
Biblical Criticism, 1 that " the discrepancy between 
the traditional view of the Pentateuch, and the plain 
statements of the Historical Books and the Prophets, 
is marked and fundamental." This view is accord- 
ingly discarded by him, and another commended to 
us as representing " the growing conviction of an 
overwhelming weight of the most earnest and sober 
scholarship." He asks us to believe that Deuteron- 
omy made its first appearance in the reign of Josiah, 
and that the Levitical Law was not in existence until 
the time of Ezra. 

The hypothesis which the Professor has undertaken 
to unfold and defend has only very recently attracted 
any serious attention. Professor Rcuss of Strasburg 
claims the credit of having given the original impulse 
to this newest school of Pentateuch criticism, by pro- 
pounding this view in his' lectures as early as 1833. 
His pupil, K. H. Graf, elaborated it more fully in his 
treatise " De Templo Silonensi " (1855), in his " Pro- 

1 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church ; twelve lectures on 
Biblical Criticism. By W. Robertson Smith, M. A. New York : 
D. Appleton & Co. 188 1. i2mo, pp. 446. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 45 

phet Jeremiah" (1862), and in his " Geschichtliche 
Biicher des Alten Testaments " (1866). As proposed 
by him, however, it was burdened with fatal incon- 
sistencies which were speedily pointed out by its 
antagonists. The divisive critics, who parcelled out 
the Pentateuch among different writers, had pre- 
viously conducted their analysis and based their 
conclusions upon literary considerations chiefly, — the 
style and diction, and quality of thought and acquaint- 
ance shown with other parts of the work. Graf drew 
his arguments from legislative considerations, the 
supposed development of laws, and the order in which 
successive enactments may be thought to have been 
made; and conceiving the legislation of Deuteron- 
omy to be simpler and more primitive, and that of 
Leviticus to be more complicated and developed, he 
inferred, contrary to the prevailing sentiment of pre- 
ceding critics, that Deuteronomy is of earlier date 
than Leviticus, and belongs to a prior stage in the 
history of the people. Meanwhile he allowed the 
conclusions of the critics in relation to the narratives 
of the Pentateuch to remain undisturbed, conceding 
a higher antiquity to the Elohistic portion, which is in 
the closest affinity with Leviticus, than to the Jehovis- 
tic portion, to which Deuteronomy attaches itself. 
This self-contradiction Kuenen undertook to remove 
by reversing the relation of the Elohist and the Je- 
hovist, thus boldly challenging the position which all 
preceding critical investigations had been supposed 
to settle beyond peradventure. 

To disinterested spectators of these hostile critical 



46 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

camps, this looks very like a fresh demonstration of 
the precarious and inconclusive nature of their entire 
process of argument. Experiments without number 
have been made of running the dissecting knife 
through the Pentateuch ; and each fresh operator 
has pronounced, with the utmost positiveness, upon 
the age of each separate portion, and has pointed 
out the influences under which it was written and 
the condition of affairs when it was produced. And 
now everything has been thrown into a fresh jumble 
again ; the whole order of production, confidently 
insisted upon before, is suddenly declared to be a 
mistake ; everything must be reconstructed on a new 
basis. In the midst of this jargon of voices, clamor- 
ing on the one hand for the priority of the Elohist, 
and on the other for the priority of the Jehovist, it 
may be safe to wait awhile before attaching ourselves 
to either party. Possibly the next critical discovery 
may be that they were contemporaneous. 

Of course we cannot here enter upon the intermin- 
able question as to the real existence of the various 
writers among whom the critics propose to parcel 
the Pentateuch, and fortunately it is quite unnecessary 
for our present purpose. So far as its decision de- 
pends upon alleged peculiarities of style and diction 
it is a purely literary question, which no more affects 
the antiquity and authority of the books of Moses in 
general, or of the laws of Moses in particular, than 
the fact that a given law of Congress was not drafted 
throughout by the same pen, but that certain words 
or clauses or paragraphs can be traced to different 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 47 

members of that body, detracts from its authenticity 
or validity. The composite character of the Penta- 
teuch, supposing it established, would not prove the 
post-Mosaic date of the Pentateuchal legislation in 
its present form, unless this could first be proved for 
one or more of its constituent parts. The several dates 
of the assumed documents, and the order of their 
production, are alone pertinent to the matter now at 
issue. And here the critics are confessedly at sea. 

We cannot deny to the authors of this latest hy- 
pothesis the praise of a high degree of ingenuity in 
its construction, of consummate dexterity in adapting 
it to the emergencies of the case and in marshalling 
all available materials for its support, and of unflinch- 
ing intrepidity — or rather a veritable audacity — 
in pushing it to its last results, so that it is absolutely 
beyond the reach of the rednctio ad absurdum argu- 
ment; for the most preposterous conclusions are 
accepted without hesitation, and paraded as genuine 
discoveries. Kuenen and Wellhausen have shown us 
by what clever tricks of legerdemain they can con- 
struct Castles in the Air, and produce histories which 
have positively no basis whatever but their own ex- 
uberant fancy; while Lagarde makes the practical 
application of their principles by demanding the over- 
throw of the Christian Church and its institutions, as 
the mere outgrowth of Pharisaical superstition. The 
temporary applause which has followed upon the 
performance of these novel feats is no augury of its 
abiding popularity, much less of its assured success. 
The boastful claims of its advocates will not disturb 



48 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

the equanimity of those who remember with what 
rapidity hypothesis has succeeded hypothesis, and 
one phase of criticism has grown up after another, in 
the fruitful soil of German speculation. 

It is substantially a revival of ideas which were 
almost simultaneously suggested by Vatke, George, 
and Von Bohlen, in 1835, but which then fell utterly 
flat. De Wette, 1 in his review of these "three young 
critics," dryly suggested that there was a reason for 
this hypothesis coming to the surface, inasmuch as the 
criticism of the Pentateuch could only thus complete 
the entire round of possible assumptions. And he 
said of the reconstruction of Israelitish history upon 
the basis proposed, that " the only thing lacking to 
make it attractive is truth ; " that " whether from a 
dread of individualism inspired by the Hegelian philos- 
ophy, a predilection for development and self-impelled 
struggles upward, or a love of paradox, they have 
linked the history of Hebraism not with the fixed 
point of the grand creations of Moses, but have sus- 
pended its beginnings upon airy nothing." Hupfeld 2 
repudiated in the strongest terms the distinctive 
principle of their hypothesis (as of Grafs and Kuen- 
en's) that Deuteronomy is the earliest instead of the 
latest portion of the Pentateuch, — calling it " a mon- 
strous error that turned everything topsy-turvy, and 
perverted and entangled the questions at issue, but 
did not solve them." Riehm, 3 in 1854, considered it 

1 " Studien und Kritiken " for 1837, pp. 955, 981. 

2 "De Primitiva Festorum Ratione," 1851, p. I. 

3 "Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, Vorrede," p. v. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 49 

a " critical or rather uncritical view," which was already 
" antiquated " and unworthy of attention. And there 
is little likelihood that this hypothesis, even in its 
most recent phase, will win its way to universal favor, 
when critics such as Riehm, Dillmann, Kleinert, Marti, 
Delitzsch, Klostermann, Bredenkamp, and D. Hoff- 
mann * have pronounced against it, not to speak of 
the assaults made upon it from the rear by those who 
charge it with a timid conservatism and with not 
being thorough-going enough in the work of demo- 
lition. It is apparent that this hypothesis affords us 
no firm footing, were we to embrace it. If all that 
has thus far been asked were to be conceded, no 
guarantee is or can be given against fresh demands 
in the same direction. It is only the arbitrary pleas- 
ure of the critics, and nothing in the nature of the 
case, which leads them with their principles and 
methods to stop where they do. 

In five passages in the Pentateuch (Ex. xvii. 14, 
xxiv. 4, xxxiv. 27 ; Num. xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xxxi. 9, 
22, 24), as Prof. Robertson Smith correctly informs 
us, Moses is said to have written down certain things. 

1 Riehm reviewed Graf's positions in the " Studien und Kritiken" 
for 1868 and 1872; Dillmann, "Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus," 
1880; Kleinert, "Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker," 
1872; Marti, "Traces of the so-called Grundschrift of the Hexateuch 
in the Pre^exilic Prophets of the Old' Testament," in the Jahrbucher 
fur Protestantische Theologie, 1880; Delitzsch, a series of articles in 
" Luthardt's Zeitschrift fur Wissenchaft und Leben," 1880; Kloster- 
mann, in the "Zeitschrift fur Lutherische Theologie und Kirche," 
1877; Bredenkamp, "Gesetz und Propheten," 1881; D. Hoffmann, 
" Magazin fur die Wissenchaft des Judenthums," 1876-80. 



5<D PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

The express statement of his authorship in these 
cases does not exclude it in others, any more than 
it follows, from Isa. viii. I and xxx. 8, that Isaiah 
wrote nothing but what is referred to in those verses. 
The natural presumption, on the contrary, is that if 
he wrote those scraps of the History and those sec- 
tions of the Law, he also wrote others which it was 
quite as important to have recorded. These recog- 
nitions of the fact that whatever was memorable 
should be committed to writing for safe preservation, 
and that Moses was the proper person to write it, 
would rather lead us to expect that Moses would 
record the history and the legislation in which he 
bore so prominent a part, and incline us to believe 
that "the book," to which reference is made (Ex. 
xvii. 14 Hed.), is such a comprehensive work upon 
which he was then already engaged, or which at least 
he intended to prepare. 

But we shall lay no stress upon presumptions. We 
shall concern ourselves simply with duly certified 
facts ; and as the discussion of Prof. W. R. Smith 
relates merely to the laws of the Pentateuch, we shall 
confine ourselves ~to these. And here we adopt the 
appropriate division, which he gives us (pp. 316, ff.), 
into " three principal groups of laws or ritual ob- 
servances, in addition to the Ten Commandments," 
viz: 1. The Collection, Ex. xxi.-xxiii. 2. The Deu- 
teronomic Code, Deut. xii.-xxvi., as distinguished 
from what is purely hortatory and historical in the 
book. 3. The Levitical Legislation, which does not 
form a compact code like the preceding, but is scat- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 5 1 

tered through several parts of Exodus and the books 
of Leviticus and Numbers. Three of the passages 
above adduced speak of Moses as writing laws. In 
Ex. xxiv. 4 he is said to have written " all the words 
of the LORD." This the Professor (p. 331) would re- 
strict to the Ten Commandments. But after God had 
uttered these by His own voice, and the terrified peo- 
ple had asked that Moses should henceforth speak 
with them, and not God, the Lord gave them His 
commands through Moses (Ex. xx. 22 ff.), including 
a body of judgments or ordinances (ch. xxi-xxiii.). 
Then (xxiv. 3) Moses came and told the people all the 
words of the Lord, — of course not merely the Ten 
Words which they had themselves heard Him speak, 
but all that God had charged him to say to them, 
and particularly " the judgments," which are there- 
fore separately specified. " And all the people an- 
swered with one voice, and said, All the words which 
the LORD hath said, will we do." Now, unless any 
one is prepared to maintain that the people here 
promised obedience to the Ten Commandments only, 
and not to the judgments which Moses had just re- 
peated to them from the mouth of God, he must ad- 
mit that both are included in the words of the Lord, 
which the very next verse declares that Moses wrote, 
and which (ver. 8) entered into the covenant then 
formed between Jehovah and Israel. It could not be 
more explicitly stated than it is, that this first collec- 
tion of laws dates from the time immediately fol- 
lowing the exodus. It was then reduced to writing, 
formally read in the audience of the people, their 



52 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

submission to it pledged, and the covenant of God 
with Israel ratified on the basis of it with appropriate 
ceremonies. It even claims priority to the tables of 
the law deposited in the Ark, whose authenticity and 
antiquity are vouched for in the most unimpeachable 
manner, and are not disputed by Prof. W. R. Smith. 

Again, at the renewal of the covenant after the sin 
of the Golden Calf, Moses is directed to write certain 
words, which are not " expressly identified with the 
Ten Words on the tables of stone," but are, on the 
contrary, expressly distinguished from them (Ex. 
xxxiv. 27, 28). The ambiguity arising from the 
omission of the' subject of the verb in the last clause 
of verse 28 is removed by a comparison of verse 1. 
It was the LORD, not Moses, who wrote the Ten 
Commandments upon the tables which were carried 
to the summit of Sinai for this purpose. Moses wrote 
upon some material, not indicated, the words con- 
tained in Ex. xxxiv. 10-26, which is substantially 
repeated, from the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 
23, xxiii. 12-33), being the specifications there given 
respecting the service of God, and the pledge on His 
part to subdue the Canaanites before them. They 
had grossly violated their duty to God, which wrought 
a forfeiture of His pledge, to them. Hence these 
portions of the Covenant are singled out and enforced 
upon the people afresh. The rewriting of these 
extracts is an additional confirmation of the existence 
of the Code from which they were taken, and is 
equivalent to a new assertion of its Mosaic origin. 

In Deut. xxxi. 9, we read " Moses wrote this law: " 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 53 

and (vers. 24-26) " When Moses had made an end of 
writing the words of this law in a book, until they were 
finished, Moses commanded the Levites .... say- 
ing, Take this Book of the Law and put it in the side 
of the Ark." If it is possible for words to convey the 
idea that the entire code of laws here spoken of, 
which cannot be less than Deut. xii.-xxvi., was 
written by Moses, this idea is here expressed ; and 
no amount of arguing about the variety of mean- 
ings that may be given to the term law can make 
it different. The fact that " all the words of this 
law" were to be written on plastered stones on Mount 
Ebal (Deut. xxvii. 3) can create no difficulty. This 
statement finds abundant illustration in the walls 
of tombs and temples in Egypt, and its numerous 
monuments written all over with hieroglyphical le- 
gends.- And it surely requires no great effort to 
believe it feasible to trace these laws in plaster as a 
symbolic declaration that they were thenceforth the 
laws of the land. Written in letters five times the size 
of those in ordinary Hebrew Bibles, they could all 
be embraced in the space of eight feet by three. The 
famous Behistun inscription of Darius, in its triple 
form, is twice as long as this entire Code, besides being 
carved in bold characters on the solid rock, and in a 
position difficult of access on the mountain side. 

And the whole book of Deuteronomy purports to 
be a series of discourses delivered by Moses to the 
people in the plains of Moab, inculcating and enforc- 
ing this Law. The Professor reminds us that these 
were not " taken down by a shorthand reporter ; " 



54 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

and he queries whether it is certainly the meaning 
of Deut. xxxi. 24 that we have this body of laws 
" word for word " as it was written down by Moses. 
But under cover of this regard for absolute precision, 
it will not do to fritter away the entire record. That 
Moses in his oral discourse uttered in every case 
exactly the words reported to us, just those and 
neither less nor more, we are not concerned to affirm ; 
but that he did deliver such discourses, and that they 
are here preserved in their substantial import, is fully 
certified, unless the credibility of the book can be 
impeached. And this code of laws is substantially as 
it came from the pen of Moses, if any reliance can be 
placed upon the record. 

So, too, the Mosaic origin of the Levitical laws is 
abundantly declared by the formulas with which they 
are introduced, and which recur over and over again : 
The LORD spake unto Moses, or the Lord spake unto 
Moses and Aaron ; and the formulas, by which they 
are often followed, e.g., Lev. vii. 37,. 38; xxiii. 44; 
xxvi. 46; xxvii. 34. The occasion is recited upon 
which particular laws were delivered ; and the circum- 
stances connected with these enactments are insepar- 
ably united with the historical narrative of the time. 

Now as to the origin of these several codes of laws 
there can be no possibility of mistake. It is not 
merely affirmed in a credible history, of whose truth 
we have abundant guarantee, but the nature of the 
case precludes falsehood or error. An accepted sys- 
tem of legislation, whose authority is confessed and 
submitted to, has, in that fact, the strongest possible 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 55 

proof of its genuineness. No forged body of laws 
could ever be imposed upon any people. No suppo- 
sititious code, issued in the name of Moses in a subse- 
quent age, could have been accepted without inquiry, 
and established as the law of the land. It is indeed 
supposable that the current laws and usages of any 
given period might be popularly supposed to be more 
ancient than they really were. But this is not what 
we are asked to believe. We are told that the first 
that is known of the book of Deuteronomy is that it 
was found in the Temple in the days of Josiah. It 
claims to be the work of Moses, but it never eman- 
ated from him. Its enactments had never been in 
force before. No such laws were known at any time 
during the history of the people. They were not in 
harmony with existing customs or with prevailing 
ideas, but were in some essential points directly an- 
tagonistic to them. It was prepared with the view of 
inaugurating a new departure, of carrying into effect 
reforms which Hezekiah had made a vigorous attempt 
to introduce, but had failed. Such was the hostility 
of the masses, and such the influence of parties in- 
terested in opposing them, that " a violent and bloody 
reaction " followed under Manasseh, and " in Josiah's 
time the whole work had to be done again from the 
beginning" (p. 244). And yet a newly found book, 
purporting to be the Law of Moses, but which " had no 
external credentials " (p. 351), and which, if the facts 
be as alleged, every one must have known was not 
what it claimed to be, was at once accepted by Josiah, 
" to whom it was of no consequence to know the 



56 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

exact date and authorship of the book" (p. 363). 
One, at least, of its provisions was unwelcome to the 
priests (p. 362), but they raised no question as to the 
origin of a code so mysteriously discovered ; and 
under its potent influence, regulations were readily 
carried into effect, which had been so stubbornly re- 
sisted before. And Ezra, it seems, met with similar 
success in introducing the Levitical Code after the 
exile. If Mr. Gladstone could but find some law- 
book in Dublin which had never been heard of before, 
how easily and amicably the whole Irish question 
might be settled ! 

But this use of the name of Moses, we are told, is 
simply " a legal fiction ; " " in Israel all law was held 
to be derived from the teaching of Moses " (p. 385). 
Such a notion could not have arisen unless Moses 
really was the great legislator of the nation, and some- 
thing more than the Ten Commandments was directly 
traceable to him. This of itself creates a presump- 
tion in favor of the Mosaic origin of the codes as- 
cribed to him, unless there be good reason to the 
contrary. The instances which are adduced to show 
that customs or statutes of a later date were imputed 
to Moses, admit of no such interpretation, and could 
only be distorted to this end by one intent upon mak- 
ing out a case. 1 

1 Prof. W. R. Smith says (p. 387): "A peculiarly clear case of 
this occurs in the law of war. According to I. Sam. xxx. 24, 25, the 
standing law of Israel as to the distribution of booty was enacted by 
David, and goes back only to a precedent in his war with the Amale- 
kites who burned Ziklag. In the priestly legislation the same law is 
given as a Mosaic precedent from the war with Midian (Num. xxxi. 27)." 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 57 

The style in which the laws are framed, and the 
terms in which they are drawn up, point to the sojourn 

The fact is, that- Moses gave no law upon the subject whatever. It is 
simply related, as one of the incidents of the battle with Midian, that 
the prey was divided into two parts between them who went out to 
battle and all the congregation. The circumstances were peculiar, and 
no general rule was enacted. David did not divide the booty into 
two equal parts, but ordered that the two hundred who guarded the 
baggage should individually have like shares with the four hundred who 
engaged in the conflict ; and the division was not, as Moses directed, be- 
tween the army on the one hand and the people on the other, but between 
the two divisions of his little army, while to the people at large he simply 
sent presents. A more exact precedent is found in Josh. xxii. 8, though 
even in that instance no law was enacted. David made the first stat- 
ute in relation to the matter ; though some critic may be able to dis- 
cover that even this is only a " legal fiction," that being attributed to 
David which was really originated by Judas Maccabeus, who gave an 
equal share of the spoils of the enemy to the feeble and needy classes 
(11. Mace. viii. 28, 30). In Ezra ix. 11, "where a law of the Pentateuch 
is cited as an ordinance of the Prophets " (p. 310), the Prophets are in- 
clusive of Moses (Deut. xviii. 18; Hos. xii. 13), not distinguished from 
him. 

It is further alleged (pp. 319, 432) that there are conflicting state- 
ments respecting the position of the Tabernacle with respect to the 
camp of Israel, only one of which can be true history, while the other 
must be later law veiled in historic form ; but the apparent discrepancy 
is due to the interpreter, not to the text. It is brought about by the 
fashionable method of dissecting the Pentateuch, and then viewing the 
separate paragraphs in their isolation and without regard to their con- 
nection, or only so much regard to it as will choose variance, where 
that is possible, in preference to harmony. We protest against the 
entire procedure, notwithstanding the eminence and ability of those 
who indulge in it. It opens a boundless field for the display of the 
critic's ingenuity, but it is not rational interpretation, and would as 
easily create the semblance of self-contradiction in any author to whom 
it should be applied. If a meaning be given to Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1 which 
it cannot bear in the connection in which it is found, but which it is 
assumed that it might have had in some other imaginable connection 
— and especially if, with Dillman, the sense of vers. 1-6 be altered by 



58 



PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 



in the wilderness, prior to the occupation of Canaan, 
as the time when both the Levitical and the Deuter- 

leaving out words or clauses ad libitum, — it may be made to appear 
that according to this passage, and a few others, the Sacred Tent stood 
outside of the camp ; whereas it is elsewhere spoken of as pitched in the 
centre of the camp. But if we discard imaginary possibilities, and give 
to these verses their obvious sense as they stand, the alleged discrep- 
ancy disappears. Immediately after the ratification of God's covenant 
with Israel, Moses went up into the Mount and received direction to 
make a sanctuary in which God might dwell among His people. The 
sin of the Golden Calf ruptured the covenant and put an end to all pro- 
ceedings under it. Without going on to construct the Tabernacle 
according to the specifications given him, he sets before the eves of the 
people a visible sign of their altered relation to the Lord by pitching a 
provisional tabernacle outside of the camp, and at a distance from it 
to signify that God would not remain in the midst of them (Ex. xxxiii. 3). 
It is called "the tabernacle " (ver. 7) because it is definitely conceived 
by the writer as the one used for the purpose, and which was well re- 
membered by him and by his readers. (Compare the use of the He- 
brew article in Ex. ii. 15 ; Num. xi. 27 ; Hab. ii. 2.) And it is possible, 
as the Septuagint assumes and many commentators have supposed, 
that the tent referred to is the one which had already attained a sacred 
character from its having been occupied by Moses in his capacity of 
the representative of God to the people, — to which they had come to 
inquire of God, and from which he had delivered the divine responses, 
adjudications, and laws (Ex. xviii. 13-16). Joshua, Moses' servant, 
though an Ephraimite, remained in the Tabernacle when Moses left it 
(xxxiii. 11), since the Levites had not yet been set apart to the service 
of the sanctuary. The Tabernacle is in this passage spoken of as the 
place of divine revelation (vers. 7, 9, 11), and no mention made of sacri- 
fice for the simple reason that the Levitical ceremonial was not insti- 
tuted at the Tabernacle until the structure for which directions were 
given on the Mount had first been built and set up (Ex. xl., Lev. i.). 
In Num. xi. 24, 26, 30 ; xii. 4, 5, persons are said to go out of the camp 
unto the Tabernacle, and out of the Tabernacle into the camp ; but this 
does not prove the Tabernacle to have been outside of the camp. If a 
gentleman goes out of his yard into his house, it does not follow that 
his house is not in his yard. The camp considered as the abode of the 
people had its limits within as well as without. An open space, such 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 59 

onomic codes were produced (Lev. xviii. 3 ; Deut. 
xii. 9). The standing designation of Canaan is, " The 
land which the Lord giveth thee to possess it" (Deut. 
xv. 4, 7; xxi. 1, 23). The laws look forward to the 
time " when thou art come into the land, etc., and 
shalt possess it" 1 (Deut. xvii. 14; Lev. xiv. 34, 
xix. 23, xxv. 2), or "when the Lord hath cut ofif 
these nations, and thou succeedest them and dwellest 
in their cities" (Deut. xix. 1), as the period when 
they are to go into full operation (Deut. xii. 1, 8, 9). 
The place of sacrifice is not where Jehovah has fixed 
His habitation, but " the place which Jehovah shall 

as reverence required, separated the tents of the people from the Tent 
of God ; and this must be traversed in passing from one to the other. 
It was just as natural under the circumstances for an Israelite to dis- 
tinguish the camp from the sacred enclosure of the Tabernacle, as it is 
for a person in New York City to speak of driving out to Central 
Park, which is nevertheless within the city limits. So that all that the 
Professor tells us about early sanctuaries being outside of cities, and 
Ezekiel paving the way for the sanctuary being located in the midst 
of the people, is quite irrelevant. Num. x. 33 is adduced to prove 
that the Sanctuary was outside the camp when the people were on the 
march ; but it makes no mention of the Sanctuary ; it simply says that 
the Ark went before them, when they left Sinai, as their guide. And 
this is not in conflict with ver. 21. (Compare iv. 15-21.) To suppose 
such a contradiction within the compass of a few verses is to impute 
the most extraordinary heedlessness to the writer, or, if any prefer, 
the compiler of the book. While the Tabernacle and the sacred ves- 
sels had their place assigned them between the tribes as they moved 
forward, the Ark, which was the symbol and the seat of God's pres- 
ence, was singled out, as we are expressly told, to lead the way. 

1 This is the case even in Deut. xix. 14, where the last clause of the 
verse makes it apparent that the setting of the landmarks did not pre- 
cede the enacting of the Law. The Hebrew for "they of old time " 
means simply " first," and is applicable to those who originally marked 
the boundary, at whatever date. 



60 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

choose to place His name there " (Deut. xii. 5, 10 ff., 
xiv. 23 ff., xvi. 2, 6 ff.). Israel is contemplated as 
occupying a camp (Lev. xvi. 26, 28, xxiv. 10, 14, 23 ; 
Num. v. 2-4, xii. 14, 15), and living in tents (Lev. xiv. 8 ; 
Deut. xvi. 7), and in the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 21, 22). 
The bullock of the sin-offering was to be burned with- 
out the camp (Lev. iv. 12, 21) ; the ashes from the altar 
were to be carried without the camp (vi. 11). The leper 
was to have his habitation without the camp (xiii. 46) ; 
the priest was to go forth out of the camp to inspect 
him (xiv. 3) ; ceremonies are prescribed for his ad- 
mission to the camp (ver. 8), as well as the interval 
which must elapse before his return to his own 
tent. In slaying an animal for food the only possi- 
bilities suggested are that it may be in the camp or 
out of the camp (xvii. 3). The law of the consecra- 
tion of priests respects by name Aaron and his sons 
(viii. 2 ff.). Silver trumpets were made to direct the 
calling of the assembly and the journeying of the 
camps (Num. x. 2 ff). The ceremonies of the red 
heifer were to be performed without the camp 
(Num. xix. 3, 7, 9), and by Eleazar personally 
(vers. 3, 4). The law of purification provides sim- 
ply for death in tents and in the open fields (vers. 
14, 16). How differently laws are worded when 
framed specifically for a time of settled abodes may 
be seen from (Lev. xiv. 34 ff.) " house, " " walls," 
"stones," " plaster," ." without the city," etc. All 
this, and much more of the same sort, we must sup- 
pose to be " legal fiction ; " but it would be too 
"artificial" (p. 321), in the Professor's view, to im- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 6 1 

agine that Moses could speak of himself in the third 
person, as Isaiah (vii. 3 ff.), Jeremiah (xxxvi. 4 rT.), 
Hosea (i. 2 ff.), and the evangelists Matthew (ix. 9) 
and John (xiii. 23) have done. 1 

This peculiarity of these laws carries with it the 
evidence that they were not only enacted during the 
sojourn in the wilderness, but that they were then 
committed to writing. Had they been preserved 
orally, the forms of expression would have been 
changed, insensibly, to adapt them to the circum- 
stances of later times. It is only the unvarying 
permanence of a written code that could have per- 
petuated these laws in a form which no longer de- 
scribed directly and precisely the thing to be done, 

1 The Professor demands proof " that Moses would write such a 
verse " as Num. xii. 3. If Paui could say, comparing himself with 
the other apostles, " I labored more abundantly than they all," and 
John, without any imputation upon his modesty, could call himself 
" the disciple whom Jesus loved," is it altogether insupposable that 
Moses, who frankly relates his own backwardness to obey God's call 
(Ex. iv. 10 ff.), his neglect to circumcise his child (vers. 24-26), and 
the sin which excluded him from the Promised Land (Num. xx. 12), 
should refer with equal impartiality and in no boastful spirit to the 
unexampled meekness displayed by him under circumstances of extra- 
ordinary provocation ? But if any deem it impossible that Moses 
could have penned such a statement about himself, however necessary 
to his own vindication and to the truth of history, it surely does not 
follow that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch. Least of all 
can they, whose own theory rests on the assumption of an extended 
series of interpolations, and of emendations and additions ad libitum, by 
successive editors, object with any show of reason to the hypothesis 
that, in a very few instances, a word or a clause or a paragraph may 
have been inserted in the writings of Moses by some competent and 
duly authorized person for the sake of explanation, or of greater com- 
pleteness of the record. 



62 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

but must be mentally adapted to an altered state of 
affairs before it could be carried into effect. 

But suppose that we yield our assent to this notion 
that the Israelites had the singular custom of issuing 
all their laws in the name of Moses, and that they 
continued to do so down to the time of Josiah and after 
the Exile, still expressing them as though Israel were 
encamped in the wilderness of Sinai or on the plains 
of Moab. It is true that no instance of the kind is 
recorded in any historical book of the Old Testament. 
David and Solomon and Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah 
issue their orders and enforce their regulations in 
their own name and by their own authority. Ezekiel, 
who, we are told, represents an intermediate stage 
between Deuteronomy and Leviticus, makes no pre- 
tence of Mosaic authority in all that he says respect- 
ing the Temple and its worship and the Holy Land. 
The idea of a legal fiction never dawned upon the 
author of the Books of Kings, who records the find- 
ing of the Law in the Temple, but has no suspicion of 
its recent origin. Let us, however, waive all objec- 
tion on this ground. But the further insuperable 
difficulty remains that, by the hypothesis under con- 
sideration, laws are attributed to a period for which 
they have no meaning or fitness. Legislation, as 
Prof. W. R. Smith himself insists, and this is, in 
fact, the basis on which his whole argument profess- 
edly rests, — legislation must be adapted to the times 
in which it is issued. Its aim is practical ; it con- 
cerns matters of present obligation, and its statutes 
are enacted with the view of being enforced and 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 63 

obeyed. Laws are never issued to regulate a state 
of things which has passed away ages before, and 
can by no possibility be revived. What are we to 
think, then, of a hypothesis which assigns the code 
of Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah, or shortly 
before it, when its injunction to exterminate the 
Canaanites (xx. 16-18) and the Amalekites * (xxv. 
17-19), who had long since disappeared, would be as 
utterly out of date as a law in New Jersey at the 
present time offering a bounty for killing wolves and 
bears, or a royal proclamation in Great Britain order- 
ing the expulsion of the Danes ? A law contemplat- 
ing foreign conquests (xx. 10-15) would have been 
absurd when the urgent question was whether Judah 
could maintain its own existence against the en- 
croachments of Babylon and Egypt. A law dis- 
criminating against Ammon and Moab (xxiii. 3, 4), 
in favor of Edom (vers. 7, 8), had its warrant in the 
Mosaic period, but not in the time of the later kings. 
Jeremiah discriminates precisely the other way, prom- 
ising a future restoration to Moab (xlviii. 47) and 
Ammon (xlix. 6), which he denies to Edom (xlix. 
17, 18), who is also to Joel (iii. 19), Obadiah, and 
Isaiah (lxiii. 1-6), the representative foe of the 
people of God. The special injunction to show no 

1 An insignificant remnant of this once powerful people seems to 
have survived in the secluded fastnesses of Mount Seir (i. Chron. iv. 
42, 43), which five hundred Simeonites were competent to destroy. The 
date of this incident is not stated. It is mentioned in connection with 
a fact belonging to the reign of Hezekiah (ver. 41) and is probably to 
be referred to the same period ; but the Amalekites had ceased to be 
formidable from the time of Saul and David. 



64 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

unfriendliness to Egyptians (Deut. xxiii. 7) is insup- 
posable in a code issued under prophetic influence at 
a time when the Prophets were doing everything in 
their power to dissuade the people from alliance or 
association with them (Isai. xxx. 1 ff., xxxi. 1 ; Jer. 
ii. 18, 36). The allusions to Egypt imply familiarity 
with and recent residence in that land ; an impres- 
sive argument for obedience is drawn from the mem- 
ory of bondage in Egypt (Deut. xxiv. 18, 22 ; compare 
ver. 9), or of deliverance from it (Deut. xiii. 5, 10, 
xx. 1 ; Lev. xix. 36, xxvi. 13 ; Num. xv, 41) ; warn- 
ings are pointed by a reference to the diseases of 
Egypt (Deut. vii. 15, xxviii. 60). And how can a 
code belong to the time of Josiah, which, while it 
contemplates the possible selection of a king in the 
future (Deut. xvii. 14 ff.), nowhere implies an actual 
regal government, but vests the supreme central 
authority in a judge and the priesthood (xvii. 8-12 ; 
xix. 17) ; which lays special stress on the require- 
ments that the king must be a native and not a 
foreigner (xvii. 15), when the undisputed line of 
succession had for ages been fixed in the family of 
David, and that he must not " cause the people to 
return to Egypt " (ver. 16), as they seemed ready 
to do on every grievance in the days of Moses (Num. 
xiv. 4), but which no one ever dreamed of doing 
after they were fairly established in Canaan? 1 

1 It would not be surprising, even on natural principles, for Moses 
to have anticipated that the people might some time desire a king, and 
to prohibit, in that event, the display and luxurious indulgence which 
characterize Oriental courts. That Samuel disapproved of the peo- 
ple's hankering after a king under circumstances which implied an un- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 65 

And it is quite as incongruous to place the Levitical 
law after the Exile. Professor Dillmann, though he 
conceives that " the Book of the Law did not receive 
its final form and arrangement until .after the Exile 
and in the time of Ezra," nevertheless protests against 
the hypothesis as " irrational " that " the priestly laws 
and those of the cultus were first committed to writ- 
ing, or actually first framed, in the Exile or in Baby- 
lonia, where no cultus whatever existed." 1 And then 
there are detailed accounts of the Mosaic Tabernacle, 
reciting the contribution of materials for its construc- 
tion, 2 with minute specifications of the number and 

timely setting aside of himself and a want of confidence in God (1. Sam. 
viii. 7, 8; x. 18, 19), does not imply that the law in Deuteronomy was 
unknown to him. On the contrary, the author of the Book of Samuel 
plainly shows that it was then in existence, or that he believed that it 
was, by the allusions to it, or the adoption of its language, in this very 
narrative : e. g., I. Sam. viii. 3, "took bribes and perverted judgment," 
(compare Deut. xvi. 19); ver. 5, "make us a king . . . like all the 
nations," (compare Deut. xvii. 14) ; x. 24, "him whom the Lord hath 
chosen," (compare Deut. xvii. 15) ; xii. 14, " obey his voice and not rebel 
against the commandment of the Lord" (compare Deut. ix 23; i. 43). 
The Hebrew expressions in these several passages are identical, even 
where the English version varies. Solomon's violation of the law only 
shows how men may and do transgress known law under strong tempta- 
tion. And he may have palliated his offence as not contravening the real 
spirit and intent of the statute. His numerous alliances gave stability 
to his kingdom, and assurance of peace with surrounding nations, and 
he could surely avoid the snare of their idolatry. He amassed silver 
and gold, but he spent vast sums on theTemple. He multiplied horses 
for the sake of adding to his military strength, but he had no thought 
of taking the people back to Egypt. Compare Isaiah's description of 
a like state of things under Uzziah (Isai. ii. 6, 7). 

1 " Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus," Vorwort, p. viii. 

2 Delitzsch, in his Pieface to Professor Curtiss's valuable treatise on 
" The Levitical Priests," notes the interesting circumstance that the 



66 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

dimensions of its boards, their sockets and tenons 
and bars, of its various coverings and the mode of 
their preparation, and how they are to be joined by- 
loops and taches, of its various articles of furniture, 
and the instruments of the service, and precise direc- 
tions as to the manner in which they should be 
wrapped, and by whom they should be carried, and 
what place they should have in the ranks during the 
journeyings through the wilderness. All this is stated 
with the utmost precision, and every particular in- 
sisted upon as of real consequence. And we are 
asked to believe that this is all a fiction of the time 
of Ezra and of the Second Temple, when it could 
serve no imaginable purpose. Prof. W. R. Smith 
tells us (p. 357), "It is very noteworthy and, on the 
traditional view, quite inexplicable that the Mosaic 
sanctuary of the Ark is never mentioned in the Deu- 
teronomic Code." It is mentioned in Deut. x. 1-8, 
not to speak of xxxi. 9, 25, 26; and, by the common 
consent of critics, the whole book of Deuteronomy 
is one in its language, its character, and its aims. 
But why any one should expect the Ark to be men- 
tioned in a code which had no occasion to speak of 
it, we are not informed. It is, however, much more 
inexplicable, on the Professor's own hypothesis, that 
the Ark is described in such detail and such promi- 
nence given to it in the Levitical Code (Ex. xxv. 10- 
22, etc.), if this was prepared for the guidance of 

original words for "fine linen, purple, and scarlet," which reappear so 
often in the Mosaic description of the sanctuary, are the ancient He- 
brew terms, and not their Aramaic equivalents which are found in 
writings after the Exile. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 6 J 

the priests and the conduct of the ritual in the days 
of Ezra ; whereas the Ark perished in the destruction 
of the First Temple, and was not reproduced subse- 
quently. And why should directions be given about 
the Urim and Thummim (Ex. xxviii. 30; Num. 
xxvii. 21), which had ceased to be of any practical 
account (Ezra ii 63 ; Neh. vii. 65)? 

Now, what is there to hinder us from believing the 
laws of the Pentateuch to be the production of 
Moses, as they claim to be, and as their style and 
contents declare them to be? Prof. W. R. Smith, 
enlightens us upon this point (p. 333) : — 

" It is a very remarkable fact, to begin with, that all the 
sacred law of Israel is comprised in the Pentateuch, and that, 
apart from the Levitical legislation, it is presented in codified 
form. On the traditional view, three successive bodies of 
law were given to Israel within forty years. Within that short 
time many ordinances were modified, and the whole law of 
Sinai recast on the plains of Moab. But from the days of 
Moses there was no change. With his death the Israelites 
entered on a new career, which transformed the nomads of 
Goshen into the civilized inhabitants of vineyard-land and 
cities in Canaan. But the divine laws given them beyond 
Jordan were to remain unmodified through all the long 
centuries of development in Canaan, an absolute and im- 
mutable code. I say, with all reverence, that this is im- 
possible." 

The idea of development is in the air; and yet 
it is possible that it may be applied to some things 
that do not call for it and will not admit of it. The 
" nomads of Goshen " had been settled for more than 



68 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

four centuries under the government of the most 
highly civilized and the most thoroughly organized 
empire in the ancient world. They were employed 
in building treasure-cities for Pharaoh (Ex. i. u), in 
the manufacture of brick (Ex. v. 7 ff.), in masonry, 
and in all manner of service in the field (Ex. i. 14). 
They were skilled in working metals, carving wood, 
and engraving gems (Ex. xxxi. 2 ff, xxxv. 30 ff.), 
in spinning, weaving, and embroidery (Ex. xxxv. 25, 
26). Their familiarity with the cultivation of the 
soil is attested not only by such statements as Num. 
xi. 5, xx. 5 and Deut. xi. 10, but by the express pro- 
visions of what the Professor himself regards as their 
oldest extant code of laws (Ex. xxii. 5,6), including 
the regulations respecting first-fruits (xxii. 29, xxiii. 
19), the weekly Sabbath (xxiii. 12, xxxiv. 21), the 
sabbatical year (xxiii. 10, 11), the festivals of the 
harvest and the ingathering (xxiii. 15, 16), not to 
speak of the requirement of the shew-bread and of 
the meat and drink offerings. The Israel of the 
exodus could not, therefore, have been at so great a 
remove from " the civilized inhabitants of the vine- 
yard-land and cities in Canaan." Even though the 
Mosaic Tabernacle were to be remanded to the region 
of fable, it would still be true that tradition attributed 
the arts employed in its construction to the generation 
that left Egypt, and the monuments of that land lend 
this abundant corroboration. But enough besides 
remains to rivet our conclusion, which even the 
wildest criticism must respect, unless it would destroy 
the whole basis on which it can rest itself, and deny 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 69 

that there is any certainty as to the condition of the 
Israelites under Moses, in which case the entire ob- 
jection is admitted to be groundless. 

And where habits and manners remain fixed, as 
they proverbially do in the East, there could be little 
reason for change in the laws of the simple agricul- 
tural population of Palestine, eschewing as they did 
all foreign trade or travel, and holding so limited 
intercourse with other nations. Even through all 
changes in the national government, the tribal organi- 
zation continued at least until the time of the Exile, 
the usages of society underwent little alteration, and 
the affairs of each community were managed very 
much in the same manner from age to age. 

But the objection is completely neutralized when 
we consider further that the Mosaic Code leaves 
abundant room for all the modifications that could 
be demanded by the progressive life of the people. 
It is not, and was not intended to be, a complete 
system of political institutions ; and objections have 
been made to it on this very ground of its lack of 
completeness, urging that it could never have been 
put in actual operation without the supply of some 
important gaps in the legislation. The fact is, that 
the Mosaic regulations presuppose and were super- 
induced upon an already existing political constitution 
and customs that had the force of laws. The aim of 
Moses simply was to establish and perpetuate the 
covenant relation between Israel and Jehovah. It was 
not to give fixity to one particular system of civil ad- 
ministration, but to incorporate and express religious 



7<D PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

ideas in the national life. Hence, some of his laws 
are purely ethical, and were not intended to be en- 
forced by the magistrate: (Ex. xxii. 21—24, xxiii. 2, 
3, 9; Deut. xv. 5, 6, xvi. 20, xix. 8, 9, xxiv. 13, 15). 
The specific regulations which they contain were 
adopted or modified, as the case might be, from pre- 
existing usages. And all that was not expressly 
ordained by divine sanction was left free either to 
remain as it was, or to shape itself as circumstances 
might require or as the principles of the Mosaic 
religion and constitution might suggest. There was 
abundant flexibility here, and all the opportunity for 
development that could be desired. Thus submission 
to rulers is inculcated (Ex. xxii. 28) without pre- 
scribing any , definite form of government. The 
authority of elders (Num. xi. 16), princes (Num. 
xxxii. 2, xxxvi. 1), and other existing officials is 
recognized, but there is nothing to require that pub- 
lic functionaries should preserve this unvarying type. 
A monarchy was contemplated in the future, but was 
not enjoined ; it was left entirely to the wishes of the 
people and the course of events ; and when the time 
arrived, the transition was made without a jar. Moses, 
acting under a present necessity, created judges and 
based his appointment on a decimal division of the 
people (Ex. xviii. 21, 22); but this particular form 
of organization is not once mentioned in his codes of 
laws, much less perpetuated by express divine sanc- 
tion. In Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, to come before the 
legitimate tribunal is to come before God ; but who 
should be clothed with judicial functions, and how 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 7 1 

these should be exercised, is not specified. The 
Deuteronomic Code directs that there shall be judges 
in every city (xvi. 18), and that the ultimate decision 
of controversies shall lie with the priests and the 
judge at the religious centre of the nation (xvii. 
8-12) ; but the terms are general, and Jehoshaphat 
was not hindered from enlarging the judiciary in ac- 
cordance with the needs of his own time (11. Chron. 
xix. 5, 8). 

The three codes of law above mentioned belong, 
it is claimed, to different periods in Israel's history, 
and represent distinct grades of social culture and 
development, and, particularly, successive stages in 
their religious advancement. Prof. W. R. Smith tells 
us that " in the first legislation the question of cor- 
rect ritual has little prominence" (p. 343), and it 
"presupposes a plurality of sanctuaries" (p. 352). 
The Law of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, is " a 
law for the abolition of the local sanctuaries, as they 
are recognized by the first legislation" (p. 353). 
" The first legislation has no law of priesthood, no 
provision as to priestly dues." It " assumes the right 
of laymen to offer sacrifice," and " presupposes a 
priesthood whose business lies less with sacrifice than 
with the divine Torah, which they administer in the 
sanctuary as successors of Moses, — for the sanctuary 
is the seat of judgment." This priesthood consisted 
of the entire body of the Levites, who were " priests 
of local sanctuaries " throughout the whole land (pp. 
358, 359). "Deuteronomy also knows no Levites 
who cannot be priests, and no priests who are not 



72 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Levites ; " and, in abolishing the local sanctuaries, it 
makes provision for the priests who had previously 
ministered in them (p. 360). But " Deuteronomy 
knows nothing of a sacrificial priestly Torah " (p. 
371), such as the Levitical Code. According to this 
hypothesis, then, these three codes severally repre- 
sent three periods in the religion of Israel. The first 
sanctions various local sanctuaries where laymen offer 
sacrifice, and where the Levites — who are indiscrimi- 
nately clothed with priestly prerogatives — administer 
judgment. Deuteronomy, which belongs to a later 
time, restricts worship to one sanctuary, whose priests 
consequently rise to new dignity, while the Levites 
previously ministering elsewhere are now thrown out 
of occupation, and, in the need to which they are 
reduced, special provision must be made for their 
support. The fully developed ritual of Leviticus 
belongs to a period later still. 

This is about as rational as though some critic 
were to deal with the Constitution of the United 
States in a similar manner, erecting its several arti- 
cles into distinct codes, assigning them to different 
periods of the national history, and inferring from 
them that different forms of government have suc- 
cessively prevailed. The article upon the Executive 
treats only of a President and Vice-President as en- 
trusted with power, and seems to represent a sort of 
elective monarchy in which rude tribes summon one 
of their chieftains to the supreme command. Then 
the article upon the Judiciary places control in a body 
of judges, who hold office during life or good be- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 73 

havior, and thus represents a later aristocratic stage. 
And, finally, the article which confers legislative 
authority upon Congress must have originated at a 
still later date, when popular ideas came into vogue, 
and the government was lodged with representatives 
elected by the people. This method of treating a 
system of laws, whose different parts are mutually 
supplementary, as though they were distinct and in- 
dependent codes, can only lead to distortion and mis- 
conception. 

It is the fashion now to ridicule the harmonistic 
treatment of the Mosaic laws, and the development 
theory is all the rage. Nevertheless, every one must 
concede that if, upon any fair interpretation of their 
language, these laws can be shown to be mutually 
consistent and harmonious, this is entitled to the 
preference over any view which represents them as 
incompatible and conflicting. And even where the 
law has been changed in any of its provisions, and a 
later statute abrogates or modifies another given pre- 
viously, this may still be consistent with the Mosaic 
record, provided it admits of a satisfactory explana- 
tion from the different times and circumstances under 
which the law was given, and the different ends which 
it was intended to subserve. Unless variations should 
be found which it is impossible to account for in 
any other way, it is gratuitous and unwarrantable to 
assume that any of the laws ascribed to Moses are 
really of later date. 

To prove that a plurality of sanctuaries is pre- 
supposed in the first legislation, appeal is made to 



74 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Ex. xx. 24, 25 and to xxii. 30. The former of these 
passages can only afford an argument by putting a 
sense upon it which the words do not require, which 
is at variance with every other utterance of Hebrew 
law upon the subject, and which disregards the cir- 
cumstances under which these words were spoken. 
It is the primary law of the Hebrew altar, given at 
Sinai, before the Tabernacle was built, as preliminary 
to concluding the covenant between Jehovah and 
Israel (Ex. xxiv. 4). It directs the erection of an 
altar of earth or stone, and promises God's presence 
and blessing, not wherever they might choose to erect 
such an altar, but in every place 1 where God should 
record His name, that is, make a manifestation of His 
being. (Compare Deut. xii. 5, etc.) This was their 
warrant for building an altar at Sinai, where He had 
so conspicuously manifested Himself, and at every 
future place of supernatural revelation, including the 
Tabernacle which they carried with them in their 
journeyings through the wilderness ; for the wooden 
frame described Ex. xxvii. 1 ff. took its name from 
the altar of earth which it enclosed. It is not co- 
existing sanctuaries in Canaan, but altars successively 
reared at different places in the Wilderness, that are 
contemplated by the passage under consideration. 
Unless it can be shown that God " recorded His 
name " in various places at once, no sanction is here 
given to a multiplicity of altars. It was so even in 

1 The plural form in the authorized version (Ex. xx. 24) "in all 
places," which might seem to lend some color to plurality of sanc- 
tuaries, does not accurately represent the Hebrew. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 75 

patriarchal days, in the Holy Land itself. Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob built altars and offered sacrifices 
at their successive places of abode ; but they did 
not establish rival sanctuaries to be simultaneously 
occupied. 

And Ex. xxii. 30 is quite as little to the purpose : 
the firstling of ox or sheep " shall be seven days with 
his dam ; on the eighth day thou shalt give it Me." 
This is commonly understood to mean that it was 
sufficiently mature for sacrifice by its eighth day 
(Lev. xxii. 27). Its presentation at the Sanctuary, 
though admissible on that day, may have been post- 
poned to one of the annual feasts, perhaps the Pass- 
over, with which it is associated in Ex. xxxiv. 18-20, 
which is universally admitted to belong to the most 
ancient legislation. The law before us will then be 
substantially identical with that in Deut. xv. 20, which 
enjoins that it should be eaten at the Sanctuary year 
by year. If, however, this very natural explanation 
be rejected, and it be insisted that the first legisla- 
tion differs from Deuteronomy in requiring that the 
firstling should be sacrificed on its eighth day, still 
there is no need of supposing a reference to local 
sanctuaries in Palestine, accessible to every neigh- 
borhood. The law was given at Sinai, and regulated 
the presentation of the first-born in the wilderness, 
where all Israel was encamped in the vicinity of the 
Tabernacle. When they were about to enter Canaan 
the old law was replaced by one in Deuteronomy, 
adapted to the changed circumstances. And while 
there is nothing in the first legislation implying a 



76 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

plurality of sanctuaries, the three annual pilgrimages 
enjoined to " the House of the Lord" (Ex. xxiii, 17, 
19), on the contrary, very decidedly imply its unity. 1 
It is further charged that there is a serious discrep- 
ancy between Deuteronomy and the Levitical Law in 
respect to the priesthood : that according to the 
former all Levites are priests, and have an equal right 
to perform priestly functions and share the priestly 
revenues (pp. 360, 436), while in the latter none are 
priests but Aaron and his sons, and the Levites are 
servants or attendants upon the priests. All that is 
plausible in this representation arises from the as- 
sumption that Deuteronomy is a body of laws com- 
plete in itself; whereas it is really attached to and 
co-ordinated with the legislation of the preceding 
books. The mutual relations of priests and Levites 
and the special functions of each are developed at 
length in the Levitical Law, which made it unneces- 
sary to repeat the same things in Deuteronomy. Prof. 
W. R. Smith freely concedes the difference in sub- 
ject and aim between these two bodies of legislation. 2 

1 The allegation that " the asylum for the man-slayer, in Ex. xxi. 
12-14, is Jehovah's altar," whereas "under the law of Deuteronomy, 
there are to be three fixed Cities of Refuge," can hardly be seriously 
meant in the face of the distinct reference to the future appointment 
of Cities of Refuge in the passage in Exodus. 

2 " The first legislation and the code of Deuteronomy take the land 
of Canaan as their basis. They give directions for the life of Jeho- 
vah's people in the land He gives them. The Levitical legislation 
starts from the Sanctuary and the priesthood. Its object is to develop 
the theory of a religious life which has its centre in the Sanctuary, and 
is ruled by principles of holiness radiating forth from Jehovah's dwel- 
ling-place. The first two legislations deal with Israel as a nation ; in 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 77 

All that specially relates to the ordinances of worship 
and the ministers of religion finds its place in the 
former rather than in the latter. 

In matters of this description Deuteronomy makes 
explicit reference to pre-existing laws. In xxiv. 8, 9 
there is direct allusion to the Law of Leprosy previously 
given (Lev. xiii., xiv.), with an injunction to obey it, 
and mention of the case of Miriam which had arisen 
under it (Num. xii.). The introductory portion of 
Deuteronomy is filled with arguments and earnest 
exhortations based upon the antecedent history of 
Israel, which find their only illustration in the pre- 
ceding books. Deut. x. 8, 9; xviii. I, 2, speak of 
duties previously assigned and support allotted to the 
tribe of Levi, with specific reference in each case to 
former declarations on the subject, and a verbal quo- 
tation from Num. xviii. 20, the context of which 
clearly defines the relative status of priests and Le- 
vites. Deut. xi. 6 appeals to the overthrow of Dathan 
and Abiram (Num. xvi.), which the critics have not 
yet succeeded in disentangling from the uprising of 
the Levite Korah against the special prerogatives of 
the Aaronic priesthood. The removal (Deut. xii. 15) 
of the restriction requiring every animal slain for 
food to be presented at the Sanctuary, is a plain 
allusion to the law (Lev. xvii.. 3 ff.) which could only 
have been enacted in the Wilderness, as its very terms 
imply, and was an important safeguard against idolatry 

the third, Israel is a church, and as such is habitually addressed as a 
Congregation ('edah), a word characteristic of the Levitical Law" 
(P- 3i8). 



78 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

as the people were then situated. It was obviously 
impracticable in Canaan, 1 however, and is therefore 
formally abrogated before their entrance into the 
promised land. The blessing of Levi (Deut. xxxiii. 
8-1 1 ) abounds in allusions to the preceding* history 
and enactments. Deuteronomy thus, by its own ex- 
press statements, recognizes the existence and binding 
authority of a more detailed antecedent legislation 
respecting matters to which it only alludes in a brief 
and summary manner. 

It is to be observed further that Deuteronomy does 
distinguish between priests and Levites. In xviii. I 
" all the tribe of Levi " is a superfluous addition to 
the standing phrase, " the priests the Levites," if it is 
simply co-extensive in signification. (Compare Neh. 
xi. 20: " Israel, the priests, the Levites.") The in- 
tention manifestly is to affirm, both of the priests and 
of the entire tribe to which they belong, that they are 
without inheritance. Accordingly in the following 
verses statements are made respecting first the priest 
(vers. 3-5), then the Levite (vers. 6-8). And through- 
out the entire book, wherever priests are spoken of, 
the functions ascribed to them are either those as- 
signed to the priests in the Levitical Law, or are en- 
tirely consistent with them ; while on the contrary, 

1 Even the local sanctuaries, by which the Professor seeks to ac- 
count for it, would not render it tolerable. And a plurality of sanc- 
tuaries is inconsistent with the express requirement of the law in 
question (Lev. xvii. 4, 5), which recognizes but one sanctuary, "the 
Tabernacle of the Congregation," and places offering sacrifices there in 
contrast with offering them elsewhere. If the unity of the Sanctuary 
is insisted upon anywhere in the Levitical Law, this is the case here. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 79 

the Levite is in repeated passages (e. g. y xiv. 29) 
associated with needy or dependent classes as like 
them an object of generous beneficence. The dis- 
tinction between Levitical priests and Levites gener- 
ally is also made in xxvii. 9, 12, 14. The priests of 
this book, as all admit, are those of the tribe of Levi 
who discharge priestly functions, and are distinguished 
from those Levites who do not. But who in the tribe 
are privileged to be priests? Deut. x. 6 tells us that 
Aaron was priest, and his son succeeded him. The 
Levitical Law declares that the priesthood was limited 
to Aaron's family. The critics infer from Deut. xviii. 
6 that any Levite, who is disposed to do so, may be- 
come a priest by presenting himself at the Sanctuary 
and claiming the right to exercise priestly functions. 
We think it more reasonable to understand the verse 
in a manner which is equally consistent with its lan- 
guage, and is moreover in harmony with the Levitical 
Law, viz : that any Levite, whether belonging to the 
seed of Aaron or not, is privileged to go to the 
Sanctuary and perform such ministrations as are al- 
lowed to Levites of the same grade ; if of priestly 
stock, he may act as priest; if not, he may per- 
form those subordinate offices which are allowed to 
Levites. 1 

The characteristic expression for the priests in the 
Book of Deuteronomy is " the priests the Levites," 
or rather, as the words should be rendered, " the Le- 
vitical priests" (xvii. 9, 18, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8, xxvii. 

1 Ministering to the Lord was a function of the Levites as well as 
the priests (1. Chron. xv. 2; see also 1. Sam. ii. II, 18, iii. 1). 



80 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

9). In Leviticus and Numbers this phrase is never 
employed, but we find instead " the priests, the sons 
of Aaron " (Lev. i. 5, 8, n, ii. 2, iii. 2, xiii. 2, 
xxi. 1; Num. iii. 3, x. 8). This striking difference, 
however, involves no real discrepancy, for the sons of 
Aaron were of course Levites ; and " Levitical priests " 
no more proves that priests and Levites are convert- 
ible terms than " Egyptian priests" would imply that 
all Egyptians were or, if they chose, might be priests. 
This expression is, moreover, found in books where 
the distinctions of the Levitical Law are plainly re- 
cognized. 1 The occurrence in the preceding books of 
the Pentateuch of the expression " the priests the 
sons of Aaron," along with such phrases as " Aaron 
the priest," " the sons of Aaron the priest," " Eleazar 
the priest," etc., is altogether natural, because these 
were the persons who filled the office at the time, and 
to whom the divine directions were immediately given ; 
just as we read in later times of " Eli the priest," " the 
sons of Eli the priest," etc. (1. Sam. i. 3, 9), when 
these are the persons intended. In Deuteronomy, 
however, which gives no personal directions to indi- 
viduals, but contemplates the priests of the future as 
a body, a general designation, such as Levitical priests, 
was more appropriate. 2 

1 Thus Josh. iii. 3, viii. 33 (compare xxi. 4 ff., "the children of 
Aaron the priest which were of the Levites"); also II. Chron. v. 5 
(where the Professor accepts the reading, "the Levite priests," in pref- 
erence to that in the parallel passage, I. Kings viii. 4, "the priests and 
the Levites," p. 436), xxiii. 18, xxx. 27, where the sense plainly shows 
the insertion of " and " to be inadmissible. 

2 That there is nothing in this phraseology to warrant the conclu- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 8 1 

That priestly functions should be attributed to the 

sions which the critics would have us draw from it, is apparent from a 
simple inspection of the facts of the case. In the Book of Leviticus 
" priest " occurs without any qualifying epithet or any name in appo- 
sition with it 176 times, the plural " priests " four times, and " high 
priest " once. In Lev. viii.-x., the consecration of Aaron and his sons, 
and the penalty inflicted upon Nadab and Abihu for their transgres- 
sion, " priest " does not occur, but we find instead " Aaron " fourteen 
times, " Aaron's sons " seven times, " Aaron and his sons " thirteen 
times, evidently for the reason that these are the persons whom the 
narrative concerns. In Lev. xvi., the institution of the Day of Atone- 
ment, after an allusion to the death of Aaron's two sons, Aaron is 
mentioned eight times as the person charged with conducting the ser- 
vices of the day. It is only at the close of the chapter, ver. 32, that 
" the priest who shall be anointed, and shall be consecrated to minis- 
ter in the priest's office in his father's stead," is spoken of as the fu- 
ture celebrant. In Ex. xxvii.-xxxi. we read constantly of " Aaron " (fif- 
teen times), " Aaron's sons " (twice), or " Aaron and his sons " (twenty- 
two times) ; " Aaron and his sons shall order the lamp," " holy garments 
for Aaron and his sons," "Aaron shall bear the names of the children 
of Israel," etc.; only once "Aaron the priest," xxxi. 10, and once " that 
son that is priest in his stead," xxix. 30. In Lev. i.-vii. " Aaron and his 
sons" (ten times) and "Aaron's sons" (six times) interchange with 
" the priest," the writer passing readily and naturally from the names 
of those who held the office to the term descriptive of the office itself. 
It would not have been surprising if he had combined the name and 
the office more frequently than he has done ; but the fact is, that in 
the entire Book of Leviticus " Aaron the priest " occurs but three 
times, " the priests Aaron's sons " five times, " the sons of Aaron the 
priest" once, and "his sons" (meaning Aaron's) joined with "priest" 
or " priests " twice. The form of expression is evidently governed by 
the fact that the persons then composing the priestly order were pres- 
ent to the writer's thoughts. And laws drawn up in this form thereby 
give evidence that they were both enacted and committed to writing 
in the lifetime of Aaron and his sons. 

In the Deuteronomic code "priest " or "priests " with no qualify- 
ing epithet occurs seven times ; and " the priests the Levites " (or " the 
sons of Levi ") five times, or (if we include xxvii. 9 and xxxi. 9, which 
are outside of the code proper as defined above) seven times in the 



82 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

tribe of Levi 1 (x. 8, xxxiii. 8, io), because they were 
entrusted to a^particular family in that tribe, is by the 

entire book. In Moses' final address, which loojcs forward over the 
entire future of Israel it would have been out of place to speak of the 
individual priests then living. Why should he say Eleazar or Itha- 
mar or Phinehas the priest, when the priestly order for all time was 
meant? and he could not say Aaron the priest, for Aaron was already 
dead. What was more natural under the circumstances than that the 
priests should simply be referred to the sacred tribe to which they be- 
longed? There is nothing here that requires for its explanation the 
peculiarities of a distinct writer, nor a change in the constitution of 
the priesthood. The character of the address of Moses, and the cir- 
cumstances under which it was delivered, amply account for the differ- 
ence between the language used in it and- in Leviticus. If the late 
Emperor of the French, in his attempt to reorganize the Mexican 
government by placing the Archduke of Austria upon the throne, had 
drawn up a paper for his personal guidance, in which he was through- 
out spoken of as " Maximilian " and " a descendant of Charles V.," 
and in his convention with Mexico upon the subject had simply styled 
him "the Emperor of Mexico," without adding his personal name, 
what would there be in this difference of designation to cast suspicion 
upon the authenticity of either document, or to warrant the inference 
that they belong to different periods of time ? 

1 The Professor is mistaken in saying (p. 437) that according to 
"Deut. xviii. 1 scq. the whole tribe of Levi has a claim on the altar 
gifts, the first fruits, and other priestly offerings." This belongs to 
the priests, as explicitly appears from vers. 3-5 ; the Levites have a 
share in the Lord's inheritance (ver. 1). What this embraces is not 
defined here, but is assumed as known from the Levitical Law. When 
the Lord promises to be their inheritance, He surely does not design 
that the only subsistence of the entire tribe, except those who were on 
duty at the Sanctuary, should be such occasional invitations as they 
might receive to religious festivals (Deut. xvi. 14, xxvi. n, 12). This 
necessarily implies the Levitical tithe, of which the Professor says 
" Deuteronomv knows nothing ; " and " the patrimony " referred to in 
ver. 8 implies the Levitical cities, notwithstanding the fact that at the 
date to which he has seen fit to assign Deuteronomy they " lay outside 
the kingdom of Judah." The list given of these cities in Josh, xxi., 
the Professor tells us, is " really part of the Levitical Law," which on 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 8$ 

same familiar use of language as, in Gen. xlix. 10, 
the sceptre is ascribed to Judah because wielded by 
the royal line of David ; or as we might speak of the 
house of Hanover as reigning in England because a 
member of that family is seated on the throne ; or of the 
American troops at the siege of Yorktown, without 
naming the particular colonies which were represented 
there. 

" The increased provision for the priesthood," 
which, we are told (p. 440) is " one of the chief 
innovations of the Ritual Law," is a sheer creation of 
the critics. If by one section of a law a given offi- 
cer is allowed certain fees for specific services, and 
another section assigns him a regular salary, critics 
of the modern school would infer that these sections 
are separate laws which were in operation at differ- 

his theory is post-exilic; only he does not explain the puzzle that 
thirty-five cities are assigned to the Levites, and but thirteen to the 
priests, though, as he informs us in another place (p. 383), " on the re- 
turn from captivity very few Levites in comparison with the full priests 
cared to attach themselves to the Temple (Neh. vii. 39, seq^P That 
Gezer, though assigned to the Levites, was not conquered till the time 
of Solomon (p. 441), only shows what appears equally from other 
cases, that the entire land was divided among the tribes before all of 
it had been wrested from the Canaanites. That citizens of other tribes 
were joint occupants of some of these cities with the Levites, merely 
proves that the latter were not numerous enough to fill all the places 
allotted to them. That Abiathar could own a field in Anathoth, and 
Jeremiah buy one, is no infraction of law (p. 428), whether a plot of 
ground in the city is meant (Lev. xxv. 33), or a field in the suburbs, 
which could not indeed be sold so as to be even temporarily alienated 
from the tribe (ver. 34), but may, for all that we know, have been to 
a greater or less extent parcelled amongst individual owners, as was 
the case in the priestly city of Beth-shemesh, 1. Sam. vi. 14, 18 ; Josh. 
xxi. 16. 



84 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

ent periods, and that the latter belongs to a time 
when these officials were more generously dealt with 
than they had been previously. The proper legal 
provision for the priests and Levites is fully stated in 
the Levitical Law. Deuteronomy does not deal 
with this subject in any professed or formal way; it 
only incidentally makes mention of certain perqui- 
sites which they should receive, or attentions which 
should be shown them. 1 And he who can find a 

1 It is not surprising if we find it difficult to adjust some of the par- 
ticulars in a system of legislation belonging to so remote a period, and 
to a state of things so different from our own. Jurists are sometimes 
in doubt as to the precise meaning of legislators in modern times ; but 
in such cases they never admit a discrepancy if there is any rational 
way of avoiding it. If critics would adopt the same rule, which is a 
simple dictate of common sense, they would find fewer perplexities. 
In Num. xviii. 18 the flesh of the firstlings is the priests' ; in Deut. xv. 
19, 20 the offerer is to eat it before the Lord with his household, "the 
priest of course receiving," as the Professor correctly suggests, " the 
usual share of each victim." In this class of victims the priest re- 
ceived the whole ; but why might he not return to the offerer all that 
was needed for his sacrificial meal ? The direction to the offerer to 
hold such a festival is an injunction to the priests to supply him with 
what was requisite for the purpose. There is a difference, however, 
which, in the Professor's judgment, " cannot be explained away, for 
according to Deut. xiv. 24 the firstlings might be turned into money, 
and materials of a feast bought with them; but in Num. xviii. 17, it 
is forbidden to redeem any firstlings fit for sacrifice." But the thing 
prohibited and the thing allowed are quite distinct. The owner would 
" redeem " his firstling if he paid an estimated sum and retained the 
animal himself ; this might be a temptation to cupidity, to cheapen the 
estimate, and thus pay an inadequate sum. But where the distance from 
the Sanctuary was so great as to make literal transportation of the ani- 
mal thither impossible or onerous, its alienation by an honest sale freed 
the owner from any selfish temptation, and the consecration of its equiva- 
lent in money fulfilled the spirit of the statute. The alleged discrep- 
ancy in tithes is removed by observing that the tithe spoken of in 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 85 

discrepancy in this, must have a very keen critical 
sense. 

But it is alleged that there are no traces of the Pen- 
tateuchal Law in the historical and other books of the 
Old Testament until ages after the death of Moses ; 
and that both the facts of the history and the state- 
ments of the sacred writers are inconsistent with the 
existence of Deuteronomy before Josiah, or the Levit- 
ical Law before Ezra. Of course if this is so, the 
Mosaic authorship of the Law must be abandoned ; 
but, on the other hand, if that Law is distinctly trace- 
able through all the post-Mosaic history and writings, 
its genuineness is completely vindicated. 

How, then, stands the evidence? The Professor 
begins his investigation by summarily ruling out two 

Deuteronomy is quite distinct from that in Leviticus and Numbers. It 
was additional to it, and was appropriated to a different purpose. The 
Jews paid both tithes, as there is abundant evidence ; a burden to 
which they would not have submitted, if this had not been believed 
to be the meaning of the law, whether it was enacted after the Exile 
or was ordained by Moses. " The priest's share of a sacrifice in 
Deuteronomy consists of inferior parts." But this, so far from con- 
flicting with the more ample provision made for them in the Levitical 
Law, necessarily implies the existence of that provision. The dis- 
tinguished position assigned to priests in Deuteronomy, as the Lord's 
ministers and the highest judicial authority in the land, forbids the 
idea that a miserable pittance was doled out for their support. The 
perquisite in Deut. xviii. 3 is a special allowance from every animal 
slain for sacred purposes ; the phrase rendered " offer a sacrifice " has 
a broader meaning than the regular sacrifices properly so called, and 
has even been supposed by some to embrace all animals slain for food. 
It is probably intended to indemnify the priests for the change made 
(Deut. xii. 15) in the Law of Sacrifice, as a substitute for what they re- 
ceived as their due when no animal was allowed to be slain even for 
domestic purposes elsewhere than at the Sanctuary. 



86 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

important witnesses, (p. 21 8) : " I exclude the Book 
of Joshua, because it, in all its parts, hangs closely 
together with the Pentateuch." It is our only source 
of information respecting the period immediately 
succeeding the life of Moses ; but, as it carries 
the " legal fiction " through another generation, it is 
untrustworthy and must be abandoned. "And, on 
the other hand, I exclude for the present the narra- 
tive of Chronicles, which was written long after the 
reformation of Ezra, and has not the character of a 
primary source for the earlier history." It claims to 
be based on early contemporary records, which Prof. 
Robertson Smith admits to be the case with " the 
historical books from Judges to Kings." " It names its 
sources, which were still accessible to its readers, 
and appeals to them in verification of its statements; 
so that its acceptance under these circumstances as 
a reliable history, and especially its admission to the 
canon, assure us that there has been no tampering 
with the facts. Chronicles, written after the Exile, 
when the people were zealously engaged in restoring 
the institutions of their fathers, concerns itself largely 
with the history of worship. Samuel and Kings, 
though covering the same period of the history, 
were written with a different aim, and omit much 
upon this subject which Chronicles records. Does 
the silence of the former outweigh the positive decla- 
rations of the latter, and justify their being set aside 
as pure invention or as Levitical sermonizing 1 (p. 
420) ? 

1 We cannot here turn aside to answer the specific objections made 
to the truth and reliability of Chronicles further than to say that they 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. &J 

However, let Joshua and Chronicles be excluded ; 
what is the testimony of the remaining books ? And 
first let us inquire respecting the period immediately 
succeeding Joshua — that of the Judges. In Judg. 
xix. 1 8 the Levite says, " I am going," not to one 
of the houses of the Lord, but " to the House of the 
Lord," as if he knew of but one ; and this was near 
his residence " in the recesses of Mount Ephraim." 
From xviii. 31 we learn more definitely that "the 
House of God was in Shiloh," where " the Tabernacle 
of the Congregation " had been set up in the time of 
Joshua (Josh, xviii. 1, xix. 51), and where it had ac- 
cordingly continued since. It is not here stated with 
exactness how much longer it remained there, — other 
passages give information upon this point, — but that 
it was a considerable period, appears from its meas- 
uring the duration of the worship of Micah's graven 
image in Dan. " The Feast of the LORD " 1 was also 

all rest on the unproved assumption that the only sources accessible to 
the writer were the books of Samuel and Kings ; so that everything 
additional to or varying from their statements falls under the suspi- 
cion of being inference, conjecture, or pure invention. 

1 Interpreters have not been agreed whether this was the Passover 
or the Feast of Tabernacles. Prof. W. R. Smith says of it (p. 257) : 
" This appears to have been a vintage feast, like the Pentateuchal 
Feast of Tabernacles, for it was accompanied by dancers in the vine- 
yards (Judg. xxi. 21) ; and, according to the correct rendering of I. Sam. 
i. 20, 21, it took place when the new year came in, that is, at the close 
of the agricultural year, which ended with the ingathering of the vint- 
age (Ex. xxxiv. 22)." If the considerations which he adduces have any 
force, it was so very " like the Pentateuchal feast " as to be identical 
with it. The characteristic expression borrowed from Ex. xxxiv. 22 
implies acquaintance with that law of the three Mosaic festivals, and 
makes it strange that the Professor should say, in the very same para- 



88 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

annually observed in Shiloh *(xxi. 19). The people 
came to the Ark to inquire of the LORD (Judg. xx. 27 ; 
compare Ex. xxv. 22). This most sacred article of 
the Mosaic Tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 10 ff.) is called 
by its ancient name " the Ark of the Covenant " 
(Num. x. 33, xiv. 44), implying that it contained the 
Tables of the Covenant' (Ex. xxxiv. 28), as Moses 
had directed (Ex. xxv. 21 ; Deut. x. 1-5). It had 
been taken to Bethel (wrongly translated " the House 
of God," Judg. xx. 18, 26, 31, xxi. 2), temporarily 
as appears from xx. 27, that it might be near the 
scene of conflict at Gibeah (ver. 31), as was done in 
later times in the battle with the Philistines (1. Sam. 

graph, that Shiloh was visited " not three times a year according to the 
Pentateuchal Law, but at arr annual feast." Especially as on a subse- 
quent page (341) he affirms in evidence of the existence and opera- 
tion of the first legislation at this very time : " The annual feasts — at 
least that of the autumn, which seems to have been best observed — 
are often alluded to. . . . The proof that this law was known and 
acknowledged in all its leading provisions is as complete as the proof 
that the Levitical Law was still unheard of." We think it is a great 
deal more complete. But let that pass. The first legislation enjoins 
the three annual feasts (Ex. xxiii. 14 ff.) as explicitly and emphatically 
as the law of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Either the three festivals 
were observed at this time, and then his suggestion of a departure from 
Pentateuchal Law is gratuitous, or the neglect of some of the festi- 
vals on his own admission does not disprove the existence of the law 
requiring them. The Professor may choose either alternative. When 
he says - of the feast at Shiloh, " It had not a strictly national charac- 
ter, for in Judg. xxi. 19 it appears to be only locally known, and to 
have the character of a village festival," all the seeming plausibility 
of his remark arises from an inaccuracy in the Authorized Version. 
" There is a feast of the Lord " should be " The feast of the Lord is," 
etc. The idolatrous parallel in Shechem (Judg. ix. 27) is nothing to 
the purpose. 



ON THE PENl^ATEUCH. 89 

iv. 3), in the hope that the words of Moses (Num. x. 
35) might be verified in their experience. The Ark 
was in priestly custody, as the law required ; and the 
priest who " stood before " it (Deut. x. 8) was Phine- 
has, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron. Sacrifices 
were freely offered in the presence of the Ark, though 
Bethel was only a provisional place of worship pro 
hac vice ; hence it was necessary to build an altar for 
the purpose (Judg. xxi. 4), and as soon as the war 
was ended the camp was removed to Shiloh (ver. 
12). 1 

The events recorded Judg. xvii.-xxi. belong, as is 
universally allowed, to the early part of the period 

1 The failure to exterminate the Canaanites, with its natural result 
of alliances with them and the worship of their gods, to which all the 
troubles of the period are traced in the Book of Judges, was an offence 
against both the first legislation and the Law of Deuteronomy, to both 
of which there are many verbal allusions. The historical references are 
also frequent (see particularly Judg. xi. 13 ff.). Technical expressions 
also occur, borrowed from the language of the Law. The term for the 
"congregation" gathered for the sacred war against Gibeah (Judg. 
xx. 1, xxi. io, 13) is the one which Prof. W. R. Smith tells us (p. 318) is 
" characteristic of the Levitical Law." Another, equally characteristic, 
is rendered " lewdness." (Judg. xx. 6 ; see Lev. xviii. 17, xix. 29, where 
it is translated "wickedness.") The phrase "put away evil from 
Israel " (Judg. xx. 13) is frequent in Deuteronomy and peculiar to it 
(Deut. xiii. 5, xvii. 12, etc., etc.), and the punishment of Gibeah for its 
gross crime was in obedience to Deut. xiii. 12 ff. "Wrought folly in 
Israel " (Judg. xx. 6, 10, xix. 23, 24) is from Deut. xxii. 21. Judg. xxi. 
17 alludes to Deut. xxv. 6, not only in thought, but with a verbal cor- 
respondence that does not appear in the English Bible; so Judg. x. 
14 to Deut. xxxii. 37, 38. The law of the Nazirite (Num. vi. 1-5) was 
in force (Judg. xiii. 4, 5, 14, xvi. 17; 1. Sam. i. 11) ; the vow of irreme- 
diable destruction (Judg. i. 17, xxi. 11 ; compare Deut. xx. 17; Lev. 
xxvii. 29) ; the irrevocable character of a vow (Judg. xi. 35, 36 ; com- 
pare Deut. xxiii. 21-23.) 



90 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

of the Judges. And then, as we have seen, there was 
but one House of God and there was an Aaronic 
priesthood. The opening chapters of Samuel will 
tell us how it was at the close of that period. " The 
House of the Lord " (i. Sam. i. 7, 24) was still in 
Shiloh. 1 In it was the lamp of God (iii. 3), which 
burned nightly (Ex. xxvii. 20; xxx. 8), and the Ark 
with its cherubim (1 Sam. iv. 4). Thither Elkanah 

1 But says Prof. W. R. Smith (p. 258) : " We find glaring depar- 
tures from the very principles of the Pentateuchal Sanctuary. The Ark 
stood, not in- the Tabernacle, but in a temple with door-posts and 
folding-doors, which were thrown open during the day (1. Sam. i. 9, 
iii. 15). Access to the temple was not guarded on rules of Levitical 
sanctity." And this in the face of ii. 22, where the-Shiloh Sanctuary 
is called "the Tabernacle of the Congregation," identifying it with the 
old Mosaic Tent of Meeting (Ex. xxix. 4), and of 11. Sam. vii. 6, where 
God says to David, " I have not dwelt in any house sinCe the time that 
I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but 
have walked in a Tent and. in a tabernacle." The Mosaic Tent had been 
the sole Sanctuary throughout this entire period, until the Ark was 
removed to Zion. During its long abode at Shiloh, more solid struc- 
tures would naturally be erected in and about the court for the accom- 
modation of the resident priests, the reception of offerings, and other 
purposes of convenience, like the chambers subsequently in the Tem- 
ple (1. Kings vi. 5 ; Jer. xxxv. 2, 4). The doors and door-posts were no 
doubt those of the court or the entire sacred enclosure. To throw 
open the innermost part of the Temple to public view would be an 
inconceivable profanation, not only to Israelitish, but to Pagan ideas. 
Because Samuel slept in the Temple where the Ark of God was, — 
slept, that is, in one of the chambers already adverted to, — the Pro- 
fessor seems to think that he made a bedroom of the Holy of Holies. 
If he were told of some servant who blacked boots in the mansion 
where President Garfield lay sick, we suppose he would straightway 
infer that this menial occupation was carried on by the President's 
bedside. And upon the basis of such perversions as this he concludes, 
" These things strike at the root of the Levitical system of access to 
God." 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 9 1 

went up yearly to worship and sacrifice (i. 3). 
Shiloh was visited with this view, not, as the Pro- 
fessor tells us (p. 257), " by pilgrims from the sur- 
rounding country of Ephraim," but by all Israel (ii. 
14, 22, 29). This was the one prescribed place of 
sacrifice (ii. 29 ). 1 Here there was an Aaronic priest- 
hood, — Eli and his sons (i. 3) being descended from 
Ithamar, the son of Aaron (i. Chron. xxiv. 3 ; I. Sam. 
xxii. 20; I. Kin. ii. 27). And this was the only law- 
ful priesthood; for God says (i. Sam. ii. 27, 28) of 
his father Aaron, to whom He had appeared in 
Egypt, in Pharaoh's house : " I chose him out of all 
the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon 
Mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before 
Me ; and I gave unto the house of thy father all the 
offerings made by fire of the children of Israel." 
And no other priesthood than that of Aaron is recog- 
nized at any subsequent time under the Old Testa- 
ment ; not a priest is named who was not descended 
from Aaron ; and no other can be shown to have 
performed any priestly function at the Sanctuary. 
The position of the Levites in the time of the Judges is 
also that which is assigned to them by the Law. They 
are spoken of as sojourners (Judg. xvii. 7-9, xix. 1), 
because they had no inheritance like other tribes 
(ch. i.). They took down the Ark of the Lord, 2 when 

1 This passage flatly contradicts the extraordinary comment which 
the Professor makes (p. 2S8) upon Jer. vii. 22, "It is impossible to give 
a flatter contradiction to the traditional theory that the Levitical sys- 
tem was enacted in the Wilderness." He might as well quote Luke 
xiv. 26 in proof that the Gospel prohibits filial affection. 

2 Prof. W. R. Smith (p. 427 J finds an " irregularity " in the fact 



92 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

sent back by the Philistines (i. Sam. vi. 15), while 
the men who looked at the Ark were smitten by a 
great slaughter (ver. 19), and Uzzah was smitten for 
presuming to take hold of it (II. Sam. vi, 7 ; com- 
pare Num. iv. 15, 20). Beth-shemesh being a priestly 
city (Josh. xxi. 16) must have contained those who 
could rightfully offer sacrifices on the arrival of 
the Ark. Samuel, who was a Levite 2 (I. Chron. vi. 
28) — notwithstanding the fact that his father is called 
an Ephrathite (1. Sam. i. 1) in consequence of his 
residing within the bounds of Ephraim (compare 
Judg. xvii. 7) — performed subordinate ministries 

that " according to the Levitical Law it is the function of the Le- 
vites to carry the Ark ; in the history the Ark is borne by the priests 
(Josh. iii. 3, vi. 6, viii. 33; I. Kings viii. 3)." But this is no "irregular- 
ity " whatever. The priests, being themselves Levites, and of the 
family of Kohath (Num. xxvii. 58, 59), had of course a legal right to 
do whatever was performed by the latter (Num. iv. 15). Hence, on 
occasions of special solemnity, priests were bearers of the Ark ; while 
on all ordinary occasions the Levites were competent. Accordingly 
11. Sam. xv. 24, 29 where " the Levites aid the chief priests in carrying 
the Ark " does not need for its explanation the unfounded suggestion 
" that before Ezekiel priests and Levites are not two separate classes." 
Conveying the Ark in a cart (11. Sam. vi. 3) was in violation of the Law, 
and led to a disastrous issue (vers. 6, 7 ) ; this was recognized and cor- 
rected (ver. 13). 

1 Samuel did not become a priest, as Prof. W. R. Smith affirms 
(p. 259). The ephod which he wore is not that "which the Law con- 
fines to the high-priest," for it was a " linen ephod " (1. Sam. ii. 18), 
while that of the high-priest (Ex. xxviii. 6) was of more costly mate- 
rials. Nor is it true that he wore " the high-priestly mantle." One 
article of the high-priest's dress was a mantle (Authorized Version, 
robe) made as is described (Ex. xxviii. 31, ff.). But others besides 
priests wore mantles ; so that when Samuel's mother made him a lit- 
tle one (Authorized Version, coat) year by year, she did not invade the 
high-priest's prerogative. Thus "the startling irregularities " after all 
amount to nothing. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 93 

at the Tabernacle (1. Sam. ii. 11; compare Num. viii. 
22). 

The alleged departures from the ritual law at 
Shiloh were not really such. Eli's sons " made ir- 
regular exactions, and, in particular, would not burn 
the fat of the sacrifice till they had secured a portion 
of uncooked meat (1. Sam. ii. 12 seq.). Under the 
Levitical ordinance this claim was perfectly regular 
. . . (Lev. vii. 30 seq., x. 15) ; but at Shiloh the 
claim was viewed as illegal and highly wicked " (p. 
258). The sin of Eli's sons, and that which so dis- 
gusted the worshippers, was that they forcibly in- 
sisted on having their share before the LORD had His; 
and further, they claimed over and above what the 
Law allowed. Their legal portion was a matter of 
course, and is not particularly spoken of; but when 
the servant, with his flesh-hook, seized upon what- 
ever he could get without leave or license, this was 
both offensive and unauthorized. And when the 
priestly perquisite was demanded before the fat was 
given to God upon the altar, and violence was threat- 
ened if this was not conceded, the worship of Jeho- 
vah was plainly subordinated to priestly gain. The 
abominable character of the proceeding cannot be 
glossed over by any reference to the Levitical requi- 
sitions. 1 Resistance to such impiety and selfish greed 

1 The ritual of the peace-offering, as given (Lev. iii. 1 ff), required 
the presentation of the victim, laying on of hands, slaying the animal, 
removing the fat and burning it upon the altar as a sweet savor unto 
the Lord. A supplemental law (vii. 28 ff.) specifies the portion to be 
given to the priests and the religious ceremonies to be observed 
in connection with it ; but it affords no justification for the atrocious 



94 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

is not fitly spoken of as " attaching importance to 
details." 

But what is to be thought of the sacrifices offered 
elsewhere than at the Sanctuary in the period of the 
Judges, and by others than priests the sons of Aaron? 
Two facts are obvious upon the surface which regu- 
late this whole matter. The first is, that there is no 
mention in the entire Book of Judges, from beginning 
to end, of any legitimate sanctuary but that at Shiloh, 
or any lawful priest not descended from Aaron. In 
every instance of reputed irregularity, it appears by 
the record that there was no stated or continuous 
departure from Levitical rules, but only a ^deviation 
strictly limited to the occasion which called it forth. 
A second fact, equally apparent, is that these devia- 
tions are invariably linked with immediate divine 
manifestations. In the lamentable condition to which 
the people were reduced, Jehovah, or the Angel of 
Jehovah, appeared from time to time on their behalf. 
In every such instance sacrifices were offered on the 
spot by those to whom the Lord thus appeared ; and 
in the absence of such a theophany, sacrifices were 
never offered except at Shiloh, or in the presence 
of the Ark, and by priests of the house of Aaron. 
Wherever God appears the place becomes, for that 
moment, holy ground (Ex. iii. 5 ; Josh. v. 15 ; II. Sam. 
xxiv. 16, 18). It possesses, for the time, the sanctity 
of the Tabernacle. And the law that restricts sacri- 

claim that the priestly portion should have precedence over that which 
was destined to the altar, or that these should ever be ranked on 
a par. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 95 

ficial worship, in ordinary times, to the place where 
God statedly manifests Himself, cannot forbid due 
worship being paid to Him in any other place which 
He may make the scene of an extraordinary revela- 
tion. To this extent only Ex. xx. 24 authorizes 
altars elsewhere than at the Sanctuary. Similarly, 
the divinely appointed priests alone were authorized 
ordinarily to draw near to God and officiate at His 
altar. Other men could approach Him acceptably 
only through their intervention. But if God Him- 
self sees fit, in any case, to dispense with sacerdotal 
mediation, the man to whom He comes near, by an 
immediate gracious manifestation, is thereby war- 
ranted to present his homage directly to Him in 
whose presence he stands. 

Thus (Judg. ii. 1-5 ) the angel of the Lord appeared 
to the people at Bochim, and they sacrificed there 
unto the LORD ; so to Gideon, with a like result (vi. 
20-22) ; a second appearance to Gideon, with ex- 
plicit directions, which he obeys (vers. 25 ff.) ; a 
supernatural manifestation to Manoah, and a sacrifice 
(xiii. 16 ff.). And these are positively all the in- 
stances of irregular sacrifice in the Book of Judges 
which are not distinctly stigmatized as idolatrous. 
No one of these places was subsequently a place of 
sacrifice ; and Gideon and Manoah are nowhere said 
to have sacrificed again. The altar of Gideon, said 
to be still remaining in Ophrah (Judg. vi. 24), was 
in all likelihood a monumental altar, as Ex. xvii, 15 ; 
Josh. xxii. 26 ff. It does not appear that Gideon 
ever offered upon it. When directed to make a sac- 



g6 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

rifice, immediately after (ver. 25), he built another 
altar. Much less does it appear that it was used for 
sacrifice after his time. If a writer were to tell us 
that the fort of Ticonderoga is there to this day, we 
need not infer that the ancient hostilities are still con- 
tinued. Judg. xi. 11, " Jephthah uttered all his words 
before the LORD in Mizpeh," east of the Jordan, and 
(xx. 1) " the congregation was gathered together 
unto the LORD in Mizpeh," west of Jordan; these 
statements do not imply that either Mizpeh was a 
sanctuary. There is no allusion to sacrifices in either 
instance. " Before the LORD " simply implies a sol- 
emn recognition of God's presence (Gen. xxvii. 7; 
Ex. vi. 12, 30; I. Sam. xxvi. 19; Ps. cxvi. 9). That 
they who bring a sacrifice are said to " offer " it 
(Judg. xxi. 4; I. Sam. ii. 13), does not imply that 
every one could perform priestly functions ; for like 
expressions are used in the Levitical Law itself (Lev. 
xix. 5). We do not suppose that the Professor will 
dispute the reality of the divine appearances recorded 
in Judges, but if he did this would not disturb our 
argument. For the theophanies and the sacrifices 
are firmly linked together ; and if there is no evidence 
that the former took place, there is none that the 
latter were offered. 

But the Professor tells us (p. 256) that 

— " all God's acts of grace mentioned in the Book of Judges, 
all His calls to repentance, and all the ways in which He 
appears from time to time to support His people .... are 
connected with this same local worship. The call to repent- 
ance is never a call to put aside the local sanctuaries, and 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 97 

worship only before the Ark at Shiloh If the Penta- 

teuchal programme of worship, and the rules which it lays 
down for the administration of the dispensation of grace, 
existed in these days, they were at least absolutely suspended. 
It was not according to the Law that Jehovah administered 
His grace to Israel during the period of the Judges." 

There were no " local sanctuaries," as we have seen, 
except the idolatrous shrines ; and every call to for- 
sake Baal and Ashtoreth and return to Jehovah, was 
a summons to abandon them, and worship in Shiloh ; 
and their cries unto the LORD (Judg. iii. 9, iv. 3, etc.) 
doubtless found expression at the altar and the Sanct- 
uary. The infrequent mention of the Sanctuary in 
Shiloh in the course of this period can throw no 
doubt upon its continuity ; for we find it at the end of 
the period just where and as it was at the beginning, 
and as it had been from the days of Joshua. The 
regular operation of established institutions is taken 
for granted by historians, and seems to demand 
no special record. And the writer of Judges pro- 
fessedly devotes himself to reciting the instances of 
apostasy, punishment, and deliverance (ii. 11-19), 
while the intervals of rest and pious obedience are 
passed over with a simple mention of their existence 
(iii. 1 1, 30, viii. 28, etc.). Butif Shiloh was the religious 
centre of the true worshippers of Jehovah, why was 
it not the fountain-head of religious power, the spring 
of every religious movement? Why did not the 
trumpet-call to repentance issue from its priests, and 
each recurring revival spread from Shiloh outward? 
Why this seeming paralysis of the regularly insti- 

7 



98 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

tuted ordinances and means of grace, and of the duly- 
authorized ministers of religion? The Church may 
well ask, and hang her head in shame. With all the 
deduction for the unrecorded influence that emanated 
from the Sanctuary, and this was doubtless great at 
this as at every epoch, it must be still confessed that 
things are not altogether as on theory might have 
been expected. Nor were they when the Redeemer 
came to His own and His own received Him not. 
Nor were they at the Reformation of Luther. 

But how does this discredit the existence of a cen- 
tral sanctuary and an Aaronic priesthood? The body 
is nourished and strengthened by its ordinary food, 
and nothing more might seem requisite when it is in 
a healthy condition ; and yet remedies may become 
necessary which are quite aside from the regularly 
prescribed diet. The people had no other medium 
of acceptable approach to God, of expressing their 
homage or obtaining His saving help, than by the 
established ordinances of worship. But God was not 
limited to these in His dealings with His people. His 
grace is broader than the channels through which it 
ordinarily flows. Special divine influences were not 
restricted to the Sanctuary even in the days of Moses 
(Num. xi. 26-29). The Romish error of an external 
Church as the sole dispenser of grace finds no sanc- 
tion under the Old Testament more than under the 
New. 

And no exposition of the Levitical institutions, 
which places regularity of ritual observance upon a 
par with the spirit it was designed to express, can 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 99 

make them tally with the history of Israel, the devout 
breathings of the Psalmists, or the teachings of the 
Prophets. The ritualism of the Law may be em- 
phasized to such a degree as to bring Leviticus into 
disharmony with the abundant inculcations of spiritual 
obedience in Deuteronomy; to make it antagonistic 
to the declarations of Isai. i. 11 ff., Amos v. 21 ff, 
and Micah vi. 8 (p. 287) ; and to represent it as the 
grand essential of a religious reformation under the 
Law " to re-establish the stated burnt-offering, and 
the due atoning ritual before the Ark in the hands of 
the legitimate priesthood, and on the pattern of the 
service in the Wilderness " (p. 263). And then the 
fact may be established that no such system is trace- 
able in Israel before the rise of post-exilic Pharisaism. 
But the question will recur, Is it Leviticus that is at 
fault, or the wrong interpretation which has been 
foisted upon it? Is Leviticus post-exilic, or has Pro- 
fessor Robertson Smith simply misconceived the spirit 
of the Law and the method of its administration? He 
tells us (p. 213), "The Israelite had no right to draw 
a distinction between the spirit and the letter of the 
Law." He was obliged to do this on numberless 
occasions. David and his men, in danger of perish- 
ing with hunger, ate the shew-bread. The priests in 
the Temple profaned the Sabbath and were blameless. 
The rites of burial were defiling. Ezekiel threatens 
Israel that they shall be compelled to eat defiled 
bread among the Gentiles. Aaron, in his grief, 
burned the sin-offering instead of eating it in the Holy 
Place, and was justified in so doing (Lev. x. 19, 20). 



IOO PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Hezekiah prayed (il. Chron. xxx. 19) that the good 
LORD would pardon every one that prepareth his 
heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, 
though he be not cleansed according to the purification 
of the Sanctuary. The Law, whose fundamental tenets 
are (Lev. xix. 2) " Ye shall be holy, for I the LORD 
your God am holy," and (ver. 18), " Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself," not only makes the spiritual 
meaning the essential thing in every rite, but puts 
that spiritual meaning above any external rite what- 
ever. Samuel is a true interpreter of it when he says 
(1. Sam. xv. 22) : " Hath the Lord as great delight in 
burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice 
of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than sacri- 
fice, and to hearken, than the fat of rams." 

When Israel sinned with the Golden Calf and broke 
their covenant with God which had just been ratified, 
the offence was not atoned nor the breach repaired 
by any ritual. On the contrary, the ^Tabernacle 
was removed outside of the camp (Ex. xxxiii. 7). 
There was no demand of sacrifice or lustration, but 
only of repentance and humiliation (vers. 4 ff.) The 
people were sorely punished (xxxii. 27, 35), but at 
Moses' earnest intercession they were forgiven (vers. 
30 ff.) When they sinned at Kadesh by refusing 
to go into the Promised Land, not a word was said 
of sacrificial expiation or of greater zeal in the cere- 
monial. The Tabernacle and the altar and the ritual 
drop out of sight as completely as if they did not exist. 
It was upon Moses' fervent intercession (Num. xiv. 1 1 
ff.) that the people were spared from instant destruc- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. IOI 

tion, though still condemned to perish in the Wilderness; 
and, as appears from Josh. v. 5 ff., the rite of circum- 
cision was suspended, the breakers of the covenant 
being deprived of its seal. According to Lev. xxvi. 
and Deut. xxviii. the transgression of the people will 
be visited by ever increasing judgments, culminating 
in exile from the Lord's land ; and the return of 
God's favor is suspended (Lev. xxvi. 40 ff. ; Deut. 
iv. 29), not upon a punctilious observance of 
rites and ceremonies, but upon confession of their 
iniquity and the humbling of their uncircumcised 
hearts. 

The principles thus outlined in the Law itself govern 
the Book of Judges. It records the inflictions by 
which the LORD from time to time recalled the of- 
fending people to a sense of their duty and their need 
of divine help. These were enforced by communica- 
tions from " the Angel of the LORD " (Judg. ii. 1 ff. 
etc.), as promised (Ex. xxiii. 20 ff.), and by Prophets. 
(Judg. iv. 4, vi. 8., etc. See Deut. xviii. 15 ff.) It 
was not to be expected that the leaders raised up to 
judge and to deliver the people would be from the 
sacerdotal tribe. Moses' own successor was from the 
tribe of Ephraim. That Gideon and Samson were 
called to their extraordinary mission not by a sum- 
mons from the Sanctuary, but by an immediate divine 
manifestation at their homes, is in accordance with 
the analogy of the call of Moses. And yet neither 
these judgments nor these leaders effected a genuine 
and thorough reformation. The people were gradu- 
ally sinking from the days of Joshua and the elders 



102 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

that overlived him (Judg. ii. 7) to the time of Jephthah 
and Samson ; and the priesthood, it must be added, 
fell from the level of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, 
to that of his namesake, the son of Eli. The first 
effective measures for a true religious reform had 
their source in Shiloh ; they were the work of Samuel, 
who was trained at the Sanctuary. 

But the Professor tells us (p. 263): "Samuel did 
not know of a systematic and exclusive system of 
sacrificial ritual confined to the Sanctuary of the Ark" 
(p. 261) ; " He continued to sacrifice at a variety of 
shrines ; and his yearly circuit to Bethel, Gilgal, and 
Mizpeh, returning to Ramah, involved the recognition 
of all these altars." The LORD declares through 
Jeremiah (vii. 12, 14, xxvi. 6), that He has aban- 
doned Shiloh, " where He set His name at the first," 
on account of the v/ickedness of His people Israel, 
and He will do the same to His house in Jerusalem, 
" which is called by His name." Ps. lxxviii. 60, 68 : 
"He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh," and " chose 
Mount Zion." The Prophet and the Psalmist know 
of but two sanctuaries in Israel, successively sanc- 
tioned by the LORD, — Shiloh- and Zion. As the Tab- 
ernacle was removed from the midst of the camp in 
consequence of the idolatry at Sinai (Ex. xxxiii. 7), 
so, for a like reason, Israel was bereft of the Ark, 
which was sent into captivity in the land of the Phil- 
istines (1 Sam. iv. 11). God had no sanctuary in 
Israel from that day forward. The Ark was restored 
again by the discomfited Philistines ; but the slaughter 
of the men in the priestly city of Beth-shemesh showed 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 1 03 

that Israel was not prepared to have Jehovah fix His 
residence among them ; and it was an embarrassing 
question how to dispose of the Ark, which only spread 
terror in Israel as it had done among the uncircum- 
cised. It was finally placed provisionally in the ob- 
scurity of a private house, and guarded, so far as 
appears, by a pious layman (1. Sam. vii. 1). 

Here is a novel and most extraordinary state of 
affairs. The Ark, which as the symbol and pledge of 
Jehovah's presence has always hitherto been the con- 
fidence and the glory of Israel, is now a source of 
alarm. It was not taken back to Shiloh, nor was it 
taken to Nob, when the Tabernacle was carried thither 
(1. Sam. xxi. 1,6). It was not put in any sanctuary. 
It was simply sheltered in the dwelling of an ordinary 
Israelite. No priest or Levite ministered before it. 
No sacrifices were offered where it was. No pilgrim- 
ages were made to it (1. Chron. xiii. 3). 1 And during 
its long abode in Kirjath-jearim, " all the house of 
Israel lamented after the LORD " (1. Sam. vii. 2). 
The covenant between Jehovah and Israel was sev- 
ered, and they knew it. The LORD no longer had a 
dwelling-place in the midst of them. 

^Now the one purpose of Samuel's life was to bring 
Israel back to God, and thus restore these ruptured 
relations. And absolutely the Professor thinks (pp. 
262, 263) that the thing for him to have done was to 

1 In 1. Sam. xiv. i8, as Prof. W. R. .Smith correctly informs us 
(p. 94), there seems to be an error in the Hebrew text; and there 
is much to recommend the reading of the Septuagint, which sub- 
stitutes " ephod " for " ark." 



104 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

have taken the Ark to Nob, — " for the distance be- 
tween these towns is only a. forenoon's walk," — and 
to have set up the Levitical service under the conduct 
of the Aaronic priesthood ! And because he did not 
do this, the Levitical Law could not have been in ex- 
istence ! Such reasoning betrays the most astonish- 
ing misconception of the relation between Jehovah 
and Israel, and of the ritual institutions by which that 
relation was expressed and maintained. Outward 
regularity in the prescribed ceremonial had nothing 
in it that was acceptable, so long as the hearts of the 
people were alienated from God. Leaving the peo- 
ple in their profound but salutary grief at the loss 
of the Sanctuary, and of God's visible presence among 
them, he sought " to have them return unto the Lord 
with all their hearts," " to prepare their hearts unto 
the LORD and serve Him only " (i. Sam. vii. 3). The 
worship which he conducted was sacrificial, of course ; 
that was the symbolic form by which penitence 
and consecration were expressed. But the sacrifice 
was without a sanctuary and without a priesthood. 
Samuel officiated, not because he was a regular 
priest, for he was not; nor by virtue of his being a 
Levite, which would have given him no legal right 
to offer sacrifice ; but in his prophetic character as 
God's ambassador and representative. But that this 
function was an extraordinary one appears from the 
fact that it was limited to Samuel alone (i. Sam. ix. 
13). There is, from the time that the Ark Avas laid 
up at Kirjath-jearim till David removed it to Zion, 
scarcely a recorded instance of sacrifice when Sam- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 105 

uel i was not present, — except the rash and luckless 
act of Saul, which brought upon him Samuel's stern 
reprobation and the loss of his kingdom, in spite of 
his apology that he was forced to do as he did by the 
unavoidable pressure of circumstances (1. Sam. xiii. 
8-14). Samuel is plainly the centre of the religious 
life of the period. The presence of God, so far as its 
gracious manifestation to Israel is concerned, is for the 
time linked with the Prophet, not with the Ark. 

The new religious fervor awakened by the ministry 
of Samuel found expression as it could. In the ab- 
sence of any divinely authorized sanctuary we read 
of men going up to God to Bethel (x. 3), where God 
had met with Jacob ; of a high place at Gibeah (x. 
5), visited by a company of prophets and established 
probably on account of its proximity to their resi- 
dence ; of a yearly sacrifice of David's family (xx. 
6) at their home in Bethlehem. These are the only 
instances of the sort which are mentioned, except the 
sacrifices conducted by Samuel himself. All the ado 
made about " local sanctuaries," prior to the reign of 
David, dwindles down to this ; and in it there is no 
departure even from the strict letter of the Law (1. 
Kings, iii. 2)? 

1 In 1. Sam. vii. 9, 17 ; ix. 12, 13; x. 8; xi. 14, 15; xvi. 2-5, Sam- 
uel is distinctly named as the offerer, or at least sanctioned the sacri- 
fice by his presence and participation. Saul built an altar (xiv. 35), 
and he spoke (xv. 15, 21) of the people's proposing to sacrifice the 
spoils of the Amalekites in Gilgal ; but he cannot have thought of 
offering in the absence of Samuel after the rebuff which he had 
already received. 

2 What is said of David's "want of orthodoxy " (p. 264) seems for 



106 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

The worship in high places was irregular and ille- 
gal after the Temple was built ; but the fact that they 
were tolerated by pious princes, who contented 
themselves with abolishing the emblems and prac- 
tices of idolatry found there, only shows that they 

the most part captious. David did not wear " the priestly ephod " 
(il. Sam. vi. 14) but a linen ephod, which was worn by priests but was 
no part of their prescribed dress ; and, as shown by this instance and 
that of Samuel when a child (1. Sam. ii. 18), might be worn by others 
on sacred occasions. " He offered sacrifices in person " (ver. 13), and 
so Prof. W. R. Smith tells us (p. 248) : " Solomon officiated at the 
altar in person (1. Kings, ix. 25) "; and by alike principle of interpreta- 
tion it might have been added that he built the altar with his own 
hands. If Solomon really "offered two and twenty thousand oxen 
and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep " in person at one time, 
he must have had a weary task (1. Kings, viii. 63). " He blessed the 
people as a priest in the name of Jehovah " (ver. 18), where " as a 
priest " is without any warrant in the text. " David's sons were priests 
(11. Sam. viii. 18) "; but though this is the usual sense of the word, it 
must have a different meaning here, since the priests properly so called 
had already been named in the verse preceding. In 1. Chron. xviii. 17 
it is paraphrased " chief about the king," which is justified by the pri- 
mary sense of the term, and perhaps by the consideration that this high 
and confidential office was commonly entrusted to priests. (Compare 
eunuch, Gen. xxxix. 1, not in its proper sense, but as an official title.) 
That he weakly allowed Absalom to visit Hebron under pretence of a 
sacrificial vow, may be justified by I. Kings, iii. 2. His marriage with a 
princess of Geshur (11. Sam. iii. 3) is riot a violation of the letter of 
the Law, but offends as much against the spirit of the first legislation 
(Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16) as against that of Deuteronomy ; and, as this was 
Absalom's mother, the history records the dreadful penalty he incurred. 
"Solomon, building new shrines for the gods of his wives" (p. 248), 
could not plead ignorance of the Law, on the Professor's own theory 
(Ex. xxii. 20, xxiii. 24). The Professor further proves that the priest re- 
ceived his consecration not from Jehovah but from the people, by the 
case of Micah (Judg. xvii. 5, 12), the idolater, who stole his mother's 
money (ver. 2), and by the case of Eleazar, son of Abinadab (1. Sam. 
vii. 1), who was not a priest at all (p. 264). 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. \OJ 

did not do their whole duty, — not that the Law" which 
had ruled ever since the days of Moses did not exist. 
They may very easily have persuaded themselves 
that the spirit of the Law was maintained if only the 
abuses were rectified, that if God was sincerely and 
piously worshipped in these local sanctuaries there 
could not be much harm in suffering them to remain. 
How much of the New Testament must have been 
written after the Reformation of Luther, if the habit- 
ual disregard of its teachings is to be accepted as 
evidence against their existence, and especially if the 
" popular religion " is made the measure of primitive 
Christianity ! How plain it is, upon these principles, 
that the doctrine of Justification by Faith could never 
have been formulated by the Apostle Paul, if it was 
not apprehended in its integrity by the early Fathers 
and the theologians of the Middle Ages ! Hezekiah's 
admitted reform (n. Kings, xviii. 4) recognized the 
binding obligation of the Deuteronomic Law a cent- 
ury before the book was found in the Temple. That 
book — according to the explicit testimony of the 
author of Kings — was no recent production of the 
reign of Josiah. It was " The Book of the Law" (11. 
Kings, xxii. 8), i. e. y the well known volume so desig- 
nated (compare Josh. i. 7, 8, viii. 31, xxiv. 26), which 
was found " in the House of the Lord," — just where 
it might have been expected to be (Deut. xxxi. 9, 
26). It is further characterized as "the Law of 
Moses " (11. Kings, xxiii. 24, 25), and is, as Prof. Rob- 
ertson Smith acknowledges, the standard of judgment 
which the writer of the Book of Kings applies to all 



108 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

preceding reigns. The people and their rulers do 
right or do evil in the sight of the LORD as they heed 
or disregard its injunctions. This Law is expressly 
referred to (n. Kings, xxi. 7-9), as known and diso- 
beyed by Manasseh, and, in fact, as enjoined by the 
Lord upon David and Solomon ; also as obeyed by 
Hezekiah (xviii. 6) and by Joash (xiv. 6), where the 
very words of the statute are quoted from Deut. 
xxiv. 16. "The testimony" given to Joash at his 
coronation. (11. Kings, xi. 12) was a copy of the 
written Law as directed by Deut. xvii. 18 (com- 
pare Ps. xix. 7, lxxviii. 5). It is appealed to by 
Solomon in - his prayer at the dedication of the 
Temple (i. Kings, viii. 53, 56), as well as implied 
throughout in the language of his supplication ; and 
is commended by David to Solomon for the rule of 
his life (ii. 3). It is represented as equally binding 
on the Ten Tribes as upon Judah ; and their trans- 
gression of the covenant of the LORD and the com- 
mandments of Moses led to their overthrow (11. Kings, 
xviii. 12). The idolatrous corruptions of the North- 
ern Kingdom, which the Professor is at great pains 
to show (p. 230) were " not a mere innovation due to 
the schism of Jeroboam," are expressly and in detail 
imputed to him (1. Kings, xii. 26 ff., xiii. 33, xiv. 8, 9), 
so that his standing designation is " Jeroboam, the 
son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin" (11. Kings, x. 29, 
etc.). And what the Professor persists in calling 
" traditional worship," — under which head he heaps 
together all the idolatries and glaring violations of 
the Mosaic Law that are recorded at various times, — 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. IO9 

the sacred historians with one voice denounce as de- 
fections from the true worship of their Covenant God, 
and as due to criminal association with the nations 
around them. If they are not to be trusted in so 
fundamental a point as this, they are not to be trusted 
in anything. It would be better to remand the entire 
history of Israel to the region of fable, and to confess 
that we have no positive knowledge about it, than to 
attempt this revolutionary process of reconstruction, 
which is professedly based upon authorities that are 
perpetually discredited. 

But if historians may have incorporated their own 
ideas with their narrative, and committed the mistake 
of transferring the institutions of their own day to 
antecedent periods, contemporaneous writings will be 
free from this error, and represent truly the state of 
things in which they were produced. Let us turn, 
then, to these. The Book of Psalms, as the Professor 
with all his distrust of their titles confesses, contains 
some ancient songs. He admits that tradition — in 
imputing the first portion of the Psalter (Ps. i.-xli.) 
almost without exception to David — " doubtless ex- 
presses the fact that these are the oldest Psalms, be- 
longing to the early age of Hebrew psalmody, from 
David downward " (p. 202). Now in all these Psalms, 
as in the entire collection in fact, Zion is God's 
earthly dwelling-place ; no other is once alluded to. 
The Professor does not indicate which Psalms in 
particular are to be accounted David's. Hitzig, that 
prince of doubters, regards Pss. iii.-xix. as the genuine 
Davidic kernel, with the exception of Pss. v., vi., xiv. 



HO PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Prof. W. R. Smith excepts to Pss. ix., x. Suppose 
that we content ourselves with the modest residuum. 
We still find that Jehovah's abode is in His Holy 
Hill (hi. 4), His Tabernacle (xv. 1), His Temple or 
Palace, which applies to the Sacred Tent as the resi- 
dence of the Great King (xi. 4, xviii. 6) ; and men- 
tion is made of the winged cherub attached to His 
Throne (xviii. 10), also of Jehovah's Law (xix. 
7-10), and His Judgments and Statutes (xviii. 22), 
with expressions in Pss. xv. and xix. borrowed from 
legal phrases and ideas, not to speak of the historical 
allusion in Ps. xi. 6, and the abundant references to 
the Pentateuch in Ps. xviii., whose composition by 
David is attested by II. Sam. xxii. 

We do not know what the Professor thinks of 
Ps. xl. It is in its title ascribed to 'David ; but 
Smend — to whose commentary he refers us (p. 
377) for " the detailed proof that in every point 
Ezekiel's Torah prepares the way for the Levitical 
Law, but represents a more elementary ritual " — 
remarks on Ezek. xl. 39, " Sin-offerings and tres^ 
pass-offerings are here mentioned for the first time 
outside of the Priest-codex." If Ezekiel is the in- 
ventor of sin-offerings, Ps. xl. 6 1 must have borrowed 
them from him or from the Levitical Law, which he 
pioneered. Such language, when found in Micah vi. 
8, Jer. vii. 22, is interpreted (p. 288) as affirming that 
"Jehovah has not enjoined sacrifice," that He has, 
in fact, given no law upon the subject; the Levitical 

1 " Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire, . . . burnt-offering 
and sin-offering hast Thou not required." 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. m 

Law was consequently still unknown. But if Ps. xl. 
6 can speak thus after Ezekiel's Law, or the Levitical 
Law, had been announced, Micah and Jeremiah could 
do the same ; and then, for all that appears, the 
Levitical Law may antedate their utterances. 1 Or if 

1 This conclusion cannot be evaded by imputing to Ps. xl. 6 a sense 
which the Professor (p. 416) follows Hitzig in attributing to Ps. li. 16, 
17 : "At present, says the Psalmist, God desires no material sacrifice. 
. . . But does the Psalmist then mean to say, absolutely and in gen- 
eral, that sacrifice is a superseded thing ? No ; for he adds that when 
Jerusalem is rebuilt the sacrifice of Israel (not merely his own sacri- 
fice) will be pleasing to God. He lives, therefore, in a time when the 
fall of Jerusalem has temporarily suspended the sacrificial ordinances." 
Hitzig thinks Ps. xl. to be pre-exilic and ascribes it to Jeremiah. 
Olshausen, who is for sweeping everything into the Maccabean period, 
places it during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the 
Temple-worship was interdicted. But these passages in the Psalms, as 
well as Ps. 1. 8-15, are so clearly akin to Hos. vi. 6, Isai. i. 11 ff. etc., 
that they must be interpreted on the same principles. If, as is con- 
fessed, there is no absolute discarding of sacrifice in Ps. li., neither is 
there in Ps. xl., nor in those passages of the Prophets which are quoted 
to show that sacrifice, if not actually disapproved, was yet in itself a 
matter of indifference. And the Psalmists declare, just as plainly as 
the Prophets, God's permanent attitude toward sacrifice. There is 
nothing in the language of Ps. li. to suggest the thought which it is 
proposed to put into it, viz., that sacrifices are not required " at pres- 
ent " because providentially rendered impossible. And the prayer in 
the last two verses of the Psalm, " that God will build the walls of 
Jerusalem," does not refer so manifestly to the period of the " cap- 
tivity " as the Professor seems to suppose. Nebuchadnezzar could 
speak (Dan. iv. 30) of "this great Babylon which I have built," with- 
out its being necessary for us to suppose that it did not exist or was 
in ruins when his reign began. To " build " a city in Scripture phrase, 
is not merely to construct it ab initio,h\\t to strengthen or enlarge it (Josh. 
xix. 50 ; 1. Kings, xii. 25, xv. 17 ; II. Kings, xiv. 22 ; 11. Chron. viii. 2 ; Mic. 
iii. 10; Hab. ii. 12, etc.) Solomon built "the wall of Jerusalem round 
about" (1. Kings, iii. I, be. 15), though his father had not left it defenceless, 
and no victorious foe had dismantled it ; and, as Delitzsch suggests, 



112 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Ps. xl. was prior to the time of Ezekiel, the sin-offer- 
ing was not introduced by him ; though not men- 
tioned elsewhere it was part of the pre-exilic ritual, 
and Moses may have ordained it after all. And then 
still further, the Psalmist speaks (ver. 7) of all this 
as written in a book-roll, which he identifies (ver. 8) 
with the Law of God, — a written law respecting 
peace-offering and meat-offering, burnt-offering and 
sin-offering, which lays its supreme stress not upon 
the presentation of the animal required, but upon the 
surrender to God of the person of the offerer. The 
Professor tells us (p. 364) — and we preserve his ital- 
ics — " The old Israelite consecrated himself before a 
sacrifice." By an " old Israelite " he plainly means, 
in the connection, one who lived under " the first 
legislation " and prior to the time of Isaiah. The 
author of this Psalm was then an " old Israelite," and 
may have been David, as the title declares. And 
accordingly David, or the " old Israelite," had a 
written law, embracing precisely the forms of sacri- 
fice included in Leviticus ; moreover, he understood 
it in a very different sense from the rigid ritualism 
which Prof. W. R. Smith insists upon finding there. 

From the Psalms we turn to the Prophets. Hosea 
and Amos are among the earliest from whom we 
have any writings. They prophesied in the North- 



David's prayer found in this a partial accomplishment. There is no 
reason, therefore, for setting aside the title of this Psalm, which at 
least represents a very ancient and credible tradition of its origin. And 
no person, surely, who is untrammelled by a hypothesis, would ever 
dream of dating the grateful thanksgiving for divine benefits in Ps. xl. 
1-5 from either the Babylonish captivity or the Syrian persecution. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 



"3 



ern Kingdom, which had been severed from Judah 
for nearly 200 years. In casting off subjection to 
the house of David, the Ten Tribes had aban- 
doned the Temple at Jerusalem, its priesthood, and 
its worship. The separatist worship of the calves, 
the Professor tells us, was regarded by the people as 
perfectly legitimate. " They still believed themselves 
loyal to Jehovah" (p. 231). They were simply main- 
taining their old ancestral forms. The Law, which 
they are charged with violating, had as yet no exist- 
ence in Judah ; and the Ten Tribes went into exile 
long before it was enacted. The Prophets were the real 
innovators. Leaving out of view that Israel's idol- 
atrous worship was in open violation, not only of the 
Deuteronomic and Levitical codes, but likewise of the 
Ten Commandments which are admitted to be Mosaic, 
and the basis of Jehovah's covenant with His people, 
in violation, too, of the first legislation (Ex. xx. 23), 
which even on the theory of Prof. W. R. Smith ante- 
dated this period, what do the Prophets say about it? 

Hosea constantly sets forth the relation between 
Jehovah and Israel under the emblem of a marriage 
covenant (ii. 19, 20), a form of representation bor- 
rowed from the books of Moses (Ex. xx. 5, xxxiv. 
15, 16; Lev. xvii. 7, xx. 5, 6; Num. xiv. 33). His 
ever reiterated charge is that Israel is an unfaithful 
wife, who had responded to her Lord in former days, 
when she came up out of Egypt (ii. 15), but had 
since abandoned Him for other lovers (i.-iii., etc.), 
Baal and the calves (xiii. 1,2). She has broken her 

covenant, has dealt treacherously (v. 7, vi. 7), has 

8 



114 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

backslidden (iv. 16, xi. 7, xiv. 4), is repeating the 
atrocity of Gibeah (ix. 9, x. 9). The prevalent sacri- 
ficing on the hills and under shady trees is a shameless 
and criminal desertion of her lawful husband for a 
base and profligate prostitution (iv. 13). Nothing 
certainly can be further from the Prophet's concep- 
tion, than that this was Israel's original and hereditary 
worship. If the Professor is right, Hosea is radically 
mistaken. His language is not that of one who is 
seeking to lift a people to purer and more spiritual 
ideas, from gross and degrading superstitions in which 
they have always been involved. His effort is to 
reclaim those who have apostatized from God's true 
service to the standing from which they have fallen. 
The " knowledge of God," whose absence he deplores 
(iv. 1), is not a theoretical apprehension of His being 
and attributes, as though his hearers had never been 
instructed about Him, but, as appears from its con- 
comitants, that practical acquaintance with the Most 
High which is synonymous with true piety, and which 
had wellnigh vanished from the land. 

It appears from Hos. viii. 12, 1 that Israel had a 

1 Prof. Robertson Smith translates this verse hypothetically, as 
is done by several critics and commentators who seek thus to evade 
its explicit testimony. To this there are serious objections. But even 
thus it would establish the existence of a detailed and copious law 
embracing the subject of sacrifice, and which the Prophet held to be 
from God, and charged both priests and people with neglecting. 
" Though I wrote to him the ten thousand precepts of my Torah " (not 
"my Torah in ten thousand precepts," as Professor Smith has it) by 
the very hypothesis avers that there is such a Law to write. But the 
past tense of the verb in the second clause stands in the way of the 
hypothetical construction, and makes it, if not absolutely certain, yet 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 115 

written law of very considerable extent. This must 
have related in part, as the connection implies, to 
altars and sacrifices, and no doubt embraced the 
duties which the people are elsewhere charged with 
violating. (Compare also Hos. iv. 6, viii. 1 ; Am. ii. 4.) 
We learn from Hos. ii. 1 1 , ix. 5 , xii. 9 ; Am. v. 2 1 , viii. 
5, that the annual feasts, new-moons, Sabbaths, and 
festive assemblies were observed in Israel, and held in 
high esteem, and that they occupied a prominent 
place in the life of the people, so that their abolition 
would be reckoned a serious disaster. We read also 
(Am. v. 22; Hos. viii. 13) of burnt-offerings, meat- 

highly probable on grammatical grounds alone that it is historical, and 
that the future in the first clause is to be explained as in Ps. ciii. 7. 
To this add the incongruities which attend the hypothetical explana- 
tion. Why speak of imposing ten thousand requirements, as though 
these would be more likely to secure obedience than a smaller num- 
ber ? and why of writing instead of enjoining or declaring the Law ? 
The very mode of putting the hypothesis implies that written law was 
a familiar idea, that law to have its highest validity should be in writ- 
ten form ; and such a notion could only be begotten of usage. So that 
Smend gives up the hypothetical construction as untenable (" Moses 
apud Prophetas," p. 13): "The words of Hosea prove that the 
Ephraimites had many written laws in the eighth century, which, 
whether contained in one or more books, although they were neglected 
by a large part of the people, were yet known to all, and in the judg- 
ment of the Prophet demanded the obedience of all, since they were 
of divine obligation, as much so as if written by Jehovah himself." 
Nowack, one of the most recent commentators on Hosea, confesses 
that this verse is not hypothetical, but seeks to bend it to the views of 
the latest critical school, by giving to the first verb a progressive sense, 
I am writing, as implying that the legislation was not given at one time 
in the age of Moses, but was gradually produced from that time for- 
ward. Perhaps he infers from the creating, in Isai. xlii. 5, that in the 
Prophet's estimation the work of creation was still progressing, and 
that he thus anticipated the cosmical-development hypothesis. 



Il6 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

offerings, peace-offerings ; (Am. iv. 5) thank-offerings, 
free-will-offerings ; (Hos. ix. 4) drink-offerings ; (Am. 
iv. 4) the daily morning sacrifice. Hos. iv. 8 alludes to 
the law of the sin-offering; Hos. ix. 3, 4 to the law of 
clean and unclean meats. Instead of the simplicity of 
worship, which the Professor finds represented in the 
first legislation and in Deuteronomy, and which he 
would have us believe prevailed until the Babylonish 
exile, they must have had an elaborate ritual closely 
corresponding to the Levitical institutions. So that 
Smend himself says (" Moses apud Prophetas," p. 
75): "It is sufficiently evident that the cultus of 
Jehovah, as it existed in the time of the earlier Proph- 
ets, and doubtless long before, is by no means at 
variance with the character of Leviticus. Whatever 
judgment may be formed of the age of this book, the 
opinions hitherto entertained of the birth, growth, 
and maturity of the religion of Israel will undergo no 
change." 

In Hos. vi. 6 (" I desired mercy and not sacrifice,") 
the very next clause shows that the negation is not 
absolute, (" and the knowledge of God more than 
burnt-offerings "). 1 This affords a very simple key to 

1 It is remarkable how many allusions to the Deuteronomic and 
Levitical codes there are in Hosea and Amos, and even striking coin- 
cidences of language. In addition to those already cited in the text, 
the following may be mentioned as among the most obvious. The law 
of the unity of the Sanctuary is presupposed in charging them with sin 
for multiplying altars (Hos. yiii. n, xii. n) ; the prohibition of remov- 
ing landmarks (Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17) is referred to Hos. v. 10; iv. 4, 
the final reference of causes in dispute to the priest, refusal to hear 
whom was a capital offence, (Deut. xvii. 12) ; viii. 13, ix. 3, penalty of 
a return to Egypt (Deut. xxviii. 68) ; ix. 4, defilement from the dead 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 117 

the passages with which the Professor confronts us on 
page 287, and which he interprets to mean that in the 
judgment of the Prophets " sacrifice is not necessary 
to acceptable religion." " Amos proves God's indif- 
ference to ritual by reminding the people that they 
offered no sacrifice and offerings to Him in the Wilder- 
ness during those forty years of wandering which he 

(Num. xix. 14, 22 ; Deut. xxvi. 14) ; ix. 10, Baal-peor (Num. xxv. 3, 5), 
which is a Levitical passage (p. 433); x. 11 (compare Deut. xxv. 4), 
the ox not to be muzzled when treading out corn; vi. 11, Am. ix. 14, 
"return the captivity," (Deut. xxx. 3). Amos though delivering his 
message in Bethel, knows but one sanctuary, that in Zion (i. 2) ; ii. 7, 
the law of incest (Lev. xx. 11 ; Deut. xxii. 30) ; ii. 11, 12, Nazarites, 
(Num. vi. 2, 3), and Prophets (Deut. xviii. 15); iv. 4, triennial tithes 
(Deut. xiv. 28, xxvi. 12), for which in their excess of zeal they may 
substitute tithes every three days ; viii. 5, falsifying the ephah, shekel, 
and balances (Lev. xix. 36; Deut. xxv. 13, ff.) ; ii. 7, "to profane My 
holy name " (Lev. xx. 3) ; ii. 9, compare Num. xiii. 32, 33; v. 11, ix. 
14, compare Deut. xxviii. 30, 39; vi. 14, "entering in of Hamath " 
(Num. xxxiv. 8) ; ix. 13 compare, Lev. xxvi. 5. Prof. W. R. Smith de- 
duces from Hos. iii. 4 the inference (p. 226) that "sacrifice and macceba, 
ephod and teraphim, were recognized as the necessary forms and instru- 
ments of the worship of Jehovah." This finds its sufficient reply in his 
own note upon this passage (p. 423), according to which Jehovah " breaks 
off all intercourse between Israel and the Baalim " as well as between 
Israel and himself. That teraphim are spoken of in connection with 
Jacob, and were found in David's house, only shows that their wives 
were not free from superstitious practices. That Micah had them in his 
idolatrous sanctuary (Judg. xviii. 14, ff.) can surely create no embar- 
rassment. And if Micah's Levite, as he adds in the same connection 
(p. 227), was really a "grandson of Moses," this is no more damaging 
to the great legislator than it is to Luther that his descendants have 
deserted the Protestant faith, or than it is to Isaiah that he once sum- 
moned the priest Urijah as a witness to certify a fact (Isai. viii. 2), — 
whence the Professor dignifies him (p. 253) with the title of Isaiah's 
" friend," — though he had " co-operated with King Ahaz " in a change 
of altars. ~ 



Il8 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

elsewhere cites as a special proof of Jehovah's cove- 
nant grace (Am. ii. 10, v. 25). Micah declares that 
Jehovah does not require sacrifice ; He asks nothing 
of His people but ' to do justly, and love mercy, and 
walk humbly with their God' (Mic. vi. 8). And 
Jeremiah (vii. 21, seq.*) says in express words, etc., etc." 
(Compare also Isai. i. 11, seq. ; Am. v. 21, seq.). Am. 
v. 25 is a greatly disputed passage and has been very 
variously understood. It is unnecessary to go into a 
discussion 0/ its meaning here. If we accept the 
sense which the Professor puts upon its terms, it will 
simply mean that the Mosaic system of sacrifice did not 
go into full and developed operation in the Wilder- 
ness ; a fact of which we have hints elsewhere (e. g. 
Deut. xii. 8, 9), and which is implied in the language 
of several of the laws themselves (Ex. xii. 25, xxxiv. 
12; Lev. xiv. 34, xxiii. 10, xxv. 2, etc. etc.) But 
the Professor's deduction from these passages is too 
sweeping for his own theory. If they are irreconci- 
lable with the idea that any divine law of sacrifice 
then existed, they will not only abolish Leviticus, as 
he contends, but the first legislation as well (Ex. xxii. 
30, xxiii. 14-18, xxxiv. 19, 25), and Deuteronomy 
(xii. 6, 11, 27, xv. 19, xvi. 2, etc.), 1 of which Jere- 

1 The Professor thinks that the mode of observing the Passover 
underwent a change between the time of the Deuteronomic Law and 
the Levitical Code as represented in Ex. xii. 3 ff. He says that under 
the former (p. 371) " the paschal victim itself may be chosen indiffer- 
ently from the flock or the herd (xvi. 2), and is still, according to the 
Hebrew of xvi. 7, presumed to be boiled, not roasted, as is the case in 
all old sacrifices of which the history speaks." The simple solution 
of which is, that at the Passover there were sacrificed not only the 
paschal lamb with which the feast began, but (Num. xxviii. 19, 24) 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 119 

miah is the acknowledged champion, some adventu- 
rous critics having actually claimed that he wrote it 
himself; and even nullify the plea which the Lord 
directed Moses to urge with Pharaoh as a reason 
for leaving Egypt " that we may sacrifice to the LORD 
our God" (Ex. iii. 18), which is not classed among 
the Levitical passages (p. 432). 

Our space will not permit us to trace the Mosaic 
codes through the rest of the Prophets. But one view 
is common to them all, — Jehovah's seat is in Zion 1 
(Joel ii. 15, ff., iii. 21 ; Mic. iv. 1, ff.). Isaiah leaves us 
in no doubt as to the place of Jehovah's Sanctuary. 

" two young bullocks and one ram and seven lambs " day by day on 
each of the seven days during which the festival lasted. The same 
Hebrew word is translated " roast " (Deut. xvi. 7) and "sodden " (Ex. 
xii. 9), being in fact a general term applicable to any style of cooking. 
But there is no discrepancy in the statements made. According to the 
passage in Exodus, it was not to be " cooked in water, but roast with 
fire," not boiled, therefore, but subjected to the direct action of the 
fire. According to Deuteronomy it was to be " cooked," i. e., not raw, 
but the mode of preparation is not more particularly specified. That 
the term employed includes roasting is, however, obvious from 11. 
Chron. xxxv. 13, where "cooked with fire," i. e. roast, stands opposed 
to " cooked in pots and in caldrons," i. e. boiled. 

1 The sole prophetic utterance which bears the semblance of ap- 
proving a plurality of sanctuaries is the complaint of Elijah, " They 
have thrown down thine altars " (1. Kings, xix. 10). But in the anoma- 
lous condition of the Northern Kingdom, cut off from access to the 
Temple at Jerusalem, it is not surprising if the fearers of Jehovah 
maintained his worship in local sanctuaries. And the hostility to 
Jehovah's service, which overthrew these altars, was not palliated by 
the fact that, from a strictly legal point of view, they were unauthor- 
ized. We might be indignant at an infidel government for suppressing 
the Roman Catholic worship, without approving of the celebration of 
the Mass. Elijah's own sacrifice at Carmel was by immediate divine 
direction (1. Kings, xviii. 36). 



120 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Not only in the reign of Hezekiah, to whose reform he 
doubtless contributed, but from the outset of his 
ministry under Uzziah he declares his mind on this 
subject in unambiguous language. Zion is the Moun- 
tain of the LORD, which shall be so conspicuously 
exalted, and shall be the resort of all nations, and 
from which God's Law shall go forth (ii. 2, 3). It is 
upon Zion that He shall create a cloud and smoke by 
day ana a flaming fire by night, a glory and a de- 
fence (iv. 5). In the year that King Uzziah died he 
had the sublime vision of Jehovah, whom he saw in 
the Temple, and his lips were purged by a coal from 
the altar (vi. 1, ff.). It was when Sennacherib pre- 
sumed to shake his hand against the Mount of the 
Daughter of Zion that his doom was sealed (x. 32 ; 
compare, II. Kings, xix. 34). Zion is " the city of our 
solemnities " whose protection is secured by the pres- 
ence of Jehovah (xxxiii. 20). He repudiates a plu- 
rality of altars (xvii. 8), which with him has only 
idolatrous associations ; such an altar has no sacred- 
ness beyond mere chalk-stones (xxvii. 9). He pre- 
dicts the time when there shall be " an altar to 
Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt " (xix. 
19), as a symbol that this land shall be as truly as 
Canaan the Lord's land, and its people the Lord's 
people. Like Mai. i. 11, it is one of the prophetic 
intimations of the passing away of the local and 
national restrictions of the former dispensation. But 
that Isaiah had no thought of a separatist worship 
appears from ii. 3, where the same truth is clothed in 
the more strictly Old Testament form of all nations 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 12 1 

making their pilgrimages to Zion. The Lord cannot 
tolerate ritual observances as an offset to wicked lives 
(i. ii, ff.) ; but He has the same disgust for prayer (i. 
15) and the language of the lips (xxix. 13) similarly 
offered. There is no depreciation of sacrificial wor- 
ship in this, for the acceptable service that Egypt will 
one day render unto God is described by saying, 
" They shall do sacrifice and oblation ; they shall 
vow a vow and perform it " (xix. 21). 

But does not Isaiah in the same connection predict 
" a pillar " (inaqqeba) in the land of Egypt, the very 
symbol which Deut. xvi. 22 forbids? " This pas- 
sage," says Professor Smith (p. 354), " gives a superior 
limit for the date of the Deuteronomic Code." 
" Isaiah could not refer to a forbidden symbol as a 
maggeba to Jehovah." There is a slight confusion of 
ideas here. In the first place, it proves too much. 
This symbol was prohibited likewise by the first legis- 
lation (Ex. xxiii. 24, xxxiv. 13, where for "images" 
read "pillars"), which required the destruction of 
Canaanitish altars and pillars, not their purification 
and rededication to the service of God. Secondly, 
the thing forbidden was the erection of pillars in the 
neighborhood of altars with the view of worshipping 
them (Lev. xxvi. 1 ; Deut. xvi. 21, 22). Moses him- 
self had set up twelve pillars about the altar at the 
ratification of the covenant with Jehovah (Ex. xxiv. 
4), each tribe, as it were, erecting its memorial on that 
solemn occasion. Stone monuments to commemorate 
God's goodness or to mark signal events were repeat- 
edly erected in post-Mosaic times. When this was 



122 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

done with no view to sacrifice or adoration, it was no 
violation of the Pentateuchal statute. The monu- 
mental pillar, of which the Prophet speaks, at the 
border of Egypt, had no connection with the altar 
which was to be in the midst of the land. It simply 
marked the sacred character of Egypt, and was not 
intended for any idolatrous purpose. 

But Ezekiel is the great stronghold of the hypothesis 
which we are considering. Here, we are told, we can 
see the very process of the formation of the Levitical 
Law. The Prophet is convinced, by the failure of all 
his predecessors to reclaim the wayward people, that 
a new departure must be made. A barrier must be 
erected to shut out heathen influence, and to confine 
Israel rigidly to the service of Jehovah. Acting on 
this idea, he lays down (chs. xl.-xlviii.) a ritual to be 
observed on the return from Exile, in which the wor- 
ship which had hitherto been spontaneous and free 
is reduced to a fixed and unvarying form, and all 
the ceremonies are described in minute detail. This 
scheme of the cultus at the Sanctuary was enlarged 
and modified by Ezra, and thus arose the Levitical 
Law, which he brought forward in its completed 
form, and which thenceforth became the law of Is- 
rael's worship. Ezekiel's projected system represents 
a stage between the simplicity of the former cultus 
and the greater complexity of the Levitical legisla- 
tion. 

These closing chapters of Ezekiel, where it is pro- 
posed to find the key to the origin of the middle 
books of the Pentateuch, have always been a puzzle 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 123 

to commentators. And a hypothesis which professes 
to relieve them of all mystery (p. 374), to accept 
them in their most obvious sense, and to suggest a 
sufficient reason for those various regulations and an 
important purpose to be answered by them, thus 
converting what has seemed like a barren waste into 
a fruitful field, can scarcely fail to attract attention if 
it has the slightest plausibility. Some perplexities, 
however, force themselves upon us in advance. 

I. There are items in Ezekiel's description of the 
Sanctuary, the worship, and the Holy Land of the fu- 
ture, which can scarcely have been intended to be 
literally understood, but seem to have been intro- 
duced for the sake of giving an ideal character to the 
entire section. Zion could not possibly be called " a 
very high mountain" (xl. 2), unless with a view 
to the exaltation promised Isai. ii. 2, and assumed 
Ezek. xvii. 22, 23. Its utmost extent could not 
afford a site for a sacred enclosure measuring 500 
reeds or 3000 cubits, i. e. y nearly a mile on each of 
its four sides (xlii. 16 ff.). The critics have been at 
great pains to correct" reeds" into " cubits," in order 
to bring it within some reasonable probability; but 
this is directly in the face of the repeated statements 
of the text. The entrance of Jehovah's glory into 
the House represents a spiritual fact, not an occur- 
rence in the form exhibited in the vision (xliii. 2-4). 
The stream flowing from the Sanctuary (xlvii. 1-12), 
swelling as it advanced, and carrying life, fertility, 
and healing even to the desert and the Dead Sea, is 
manifestly symbolical, and can no more represent an 



1 24 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

actual river than its counterpart in Rev. xxii. 1 fif. 
The symmetrical division of the land parcelled among 
the tribes in parallel strips, with a holy oblation unto 
the LORD in the centre, is as unpractical as possible, 
and, in the case of the tribes located to the south, 
assumes a complete reclaiming of the arid desert. 
It is as plainly ideal as the uniform numbers of the 
tribes in Rev. vii. 5 ff., or as the resurrection of the 
dry bones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1 ff.) and the destruction 
of Gog (xxxix. 9 ff.), which are preliminary to these 
closing chapters. 

2. These directions of Ezekiel were not in fact 
obeyed by the returning exiles, which shows that 
their intention, as understood by those immediately 
addressed, was not to guide the present but to fore- 
cast the future. The temple of Zerubbabel was not 
built by Ezekiel's plan; nor did its cultus or the 
partition of the land correspond with the model 
sketched by him. 

3. If the Levitical Law was based upon that of 
Ezekiel, why did it not adopt the regulations given 
by him, instead of departing from them so often and 
so capriciously, as it would seem? Why, for exam- 
ple, was the burnt-offering of seven bullocks and 
seven rams, prescribed by Ezekiel (xlv. 23-25) for 
each of the seven days of Passover, and of the Feast 
of Tabernacles, converted into two bullocks, one ram, 
and seven lambs daily at the Passover (Num. xxviii. 
19, 24), and thirteen bullocks, two rams, and fourteen 
lambs on the first day of Tabernacles, to be repeated 
from day to day, with a gradually diminishing num- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 125 

ber of bullocks, to the end (xxix. 13 ff.)? We can 
understand how a Prophet, speaking in the name of 
God and presaging the Church of the future, could 
freely modify the established Mosaic ritual for the 
very purpose of intimating that the forms of the old 
Law were not immutable and would one day suffer 
change ; but this recent hypothesis is quite incompre- 
hensible, — that, after Ezekiel had with divine author- 
ity proclaimed a new and elaborate ritual, it should 
have been altered and added to and subtracted from 
by the priesthood in numberless particulars before it 
was set in operation. 

4. It is not very clear that the time when the 
ceremonial had been for the present providentially 
abolished was the one for doing what, by the hypoth- 
esis, had never been done so long as the Temple stood 
and the priests were performing its daily service, 
viz., prepare a complete formulary for its worship. 
One would think that there were more practical and 
pressing needs of the exiles than this. But if Ezekiel 
did undertake to do it, it is strange that the larger 
part of his. scheme is occupied with an utterly abor- 
tive, though most minute, description of a temple, 
which did not so differ from the plan of Solomon's as 
to further any important end. And, stranger still, 
the Levitical Law, which was meant to be an improve- 
ment upon Ezekiel, instead of giving the exiles intel- 
ligible directions for the rebuilding of their temple, 
substitutes an almost interminable account of the 
Tabernacle in the Wilderness, which is a pure fancy 
sketch of a structure that never existed. 



126 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

5. The so-called Torah of Ezekiel was issued with 
his own name, as revealed to himself. There was no 
" legal fiction " in the case, and no pretence of being 
from Moses ; which is an additional warrant for believ- 
ing that any other law published at that time or sub- 
sequently, by competent authority, would not have 
appeared under an assumed name, but have frankly 
and honestly announced the authority from which it 
proceeded, and on which it rested its claim to be 
obeyed. 

6. And we are still further puzzled to understand 
how the new ritual could have been gotten into ope- 
ration under the circumstances. By the hypothesis, 
it was a totally new departure made under false pre- 
tences. Every one knew that it was not only not 
Mosaic, but was diametrically opposed to the Mosaic 
system. All the prejudices that clung to the ancient 
ritual were opposed to it. So were the class interests 
of the priests, who, it is alleged, were now degraded 
from their former prerogatives to the inferior role of 
Levites ; and the attachments to local sanctuaries, 
which it is supposed were now summarily abolished. 
And when we remember the persistence with which 
open idolaters faced Jeremiah, and even carried their 
point in spite of his remonstrances (Jer. xliii. 2 ff. ; 
xliv. 15 ff.), the opposition from these various quar- 
ters could not have been slight. The new Law could 
not have gained prevalence from the authority of 
Ezekiel, for it freely deviates from the Law which he 
had given. It ran directly counter to the instructions 
of Jeremiah, as these are interpreted to us by the 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 1 27 

advocates of the new hypothesis, for " he knew no 
divine law of sacrifice under the First Temple " (p. 
374) ; counter also to Isai. lxvi. 1-3, which, on the 
Professor's critical principles, was by a Prophet of the 
Captivity later even than Ezekiel, in which, upon 
the same method of interpretation, Jehovah repu- 
diates all earthly sanctuaries and sacrificial rites. 
And yet, in spite of all these elements of a formida- 
ble opposition, the Levitical Law was no sooner 
brought forward by Ezra than it was at once ac- 
cepted and submitted to as " the Law of Moses, 
which the Lord had commanded to Israel" (Neh; 
viii. I, 14, x. 29), and that, too, as distinguished from 
post-Mosaic enactments (xii. 45). 

But waiving these difficulties of a general nature, 
how is it with those particulars in the Torah of Ezek- 
k iel, which recent critics affirm must have preceded 
the Law of Leviticus? We quote from Prof. Robert- 
son Smith (p. 374) : — 

" The first that strikes us is the degradation of the Levites. 
The ministers of the old Temple, he (Ezekiel) tells us, were 
uncircumcised foreigners, 1 whose presence was an insult to 

1 The allegation that "uncircumcised foreigners " were employed to 
"keep the ward of the Sanctuary" ..." as long as Solomon's Tem- 
ple stood " (p. 250) is based on an extraordinary series of non sequiturs. 
David's body-guard of Kerethim and Peleihim has been conjectured to 
be " Cretans and Philistines," on the basis of a doubtful etymology, 
which was not accepted by Gesenius, and has not been by the subse- 
quent editors of his Lexicon. The mention of " Carians," either in 
II. Sam. xx. 23 or 11. Kings, xi. 4, is much more doubtful and improbable 
still. The men " who were clad in foreign garb, and leaped over the 
threshold " (Zeph. i. 8, 9), has nothing in the world to do with " Philis- 
tines " or "foreign janissaries." So that the inference that these imag- 



1 28 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Jehovah's Sanctuary. Such men shall no more enter the 
House, but in their places shall come the Levites not of the 
House of Zadok, who are to be degraded from the priest- 
hood because they officiated in old Israel before the idola- 
trous shrines (xliv. 5, seg.). This one point is sufficient to 
fix the date of the Levitical Law as later than Ezekiel. In 
all the earlier history, and in the Code of Deuteronomy, a 
Levite is a priest, or at least qualified to assume priestly 
functions ; and even in Josiah's reformation the Levite priests 
of the high places received a modified priestly status at 
Jerusalem. Ezekiel knows that it has been so in the past ; 
but he declares that it shall be otherwise in the future, as a 
punishment for the offence of ministering at the idolatrous 
altars. He knows nothing of an earlier Law, in which priests 
and Levites are already distinguished, in which the office of 
Levite is itself a high privilege." 

The distinction of priests and Levites, though 
rarely alluded to in the pre-exilic history, since there 
was no occasion so to do, 1 is yet explicitly recognized 
in 1. Sam. vi. 15; II. Sam. xv. 24; I. Kings, viii. 4. 

inary foreign guards "are unquestionably identical with the uncircum- 
cised foreigners whom Ezelael found in the Temple " rests merely upon 
a series of positive but unfounded assertions. The unlawful pres- 
ence of uncircumcised foreigners in the Temple is of a piece with the 
open practice of idolatrous rites within those sacred precincts (Ezek. 
viii. 3 ff. ; II. Kings, xxi. 4 ff.). This shameless violation of law is no 
proof that the Law was not in existence. The Nethinim (Ezra viii. 20) 
and children of Solomon's servants (ii. 58) do not fall under the same 
condemnation (Neh. x. 28,- 29). They were, no doubt, circumcised ; 
and performed such menial services for the Levites as were permissible 
for proselyted foreigners (Josh. ix. 27). 

1 The distinction is not even made in Malachi (see ii. 4-8, iii. 3), 
though he could not, on any critical hypothesis, have been ignorant of 
its existence. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 129 

Upon the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, 
ninety years before the alleged date of the Levitical 
Law, we not only find priests and Levites sharply 
distinguished and separately enumerated, but distinc- 
tions are made among the Levites themselves, who are 
variously classed, as by hereditary descent, singers, 
porters, etc. (Ezra if. 36 fT. ; Neh. vii. 39 fi\, xii. 1-9). 
Compare also the account of the first inhabitants of 
Jerusalem after the Exile (1. Chron. ix. 2 rT.). The 
same thing recurs upon the going up of Ezra, four- 
teen years before the supposed origin of the Levitical 
Law (Ezra vii. 7, 24, viii. 15 fi\). These distinctions 
cannot have been introduced by Ezekiel's Torah; 
they could not have arisen in the Exile, when there * 
was no temple service and no occasion for singers and 
porters. They must, of necessity, have been trans- 
mitted from the period before the Exile, and repre- 
sent the distribution of functions then made among 
those that were employed at the Sanctuary. Priests 
and Levites must, therefore, have had separate duties 
and formed distinct classes while Solomon's Temple 
still stood. But further, the subdivisions of the Le- 
vites above referred to are also unknown to the Levit- 
ical Law, which apportions them in quite a different 
manner, having no possible relation to post-exilic 
times, but only to the wandering in the Wilderness, 
viz., the functions which they severally performed in 
the transportation of the Tabernacle and its furniture 
(Num. iv.). 

Again, that the Levitical Law of the priesthood 
was prior to Ezekiel, and not vice versa, appears from 

9 



130 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

the nature of the case. While the former limits the 
priesthood to the family of Aaron, Ezekiel goes still 
further, and restricts it for cause to the line of "Zadok, 
one of his descendants. 1 While the Levitical Law 
does not define the sanctuary duties of the Levites, 
but leaves them, as they might naturally be left at 
the outset, to perform such services as the priest 
might require of them (Num. xviii. 2), long usage 
gradually assigned to them specific tasks, as the 
charge of the gates, slaying the sacrifices, boiling 
their flesh, etc. (11. Chron. xxiii. 4, xxx. 17, xxxv. 13) ; 
and this is what Ezekiel expects them to do (xliv. 
11, xlvi. 24). Indeed, Ezekiel seems to make allu- 
sion to the Levitical Law in the very passage under 
discussion. He calls the employment of the uncir- 
cumcised foreigners in the Temple a breach of God's 
Covenant (xliv. 7). It was, therefore, in his eyes, 
the violation of a positive divine statute, which can 
only be Num. xviii. 4 where any " stranger," i.e., 
non-Levite, is prohibited from doing the work as- 
signed to Levites. And if Levite had always, prior 
to the time of Ezekiel, been synonymous with 
"priest," or at least denoted one who is "qualified 
to assume priestly functions," if is remarkable that 

1 It has, indeed, been denied that Zadok (1. Kings, ii. 35) was of the 
seed of Aaron. But such a groundless denial of what is explicitly set- 
tled by his genealogy (1. Chron. vi. 8, 53, xxiv. 3, xxvii. 17) is fitly 
characterized by Deiitzsch as "manufacturing history." And how the 
Levitical regulation could, in that case, have been built upon that of 
Ezekiel, and the restriction of the priesthood to the family of Zadok 
could have led to its restriction to another family of quite different 
descent, becomes still more inexplicable. 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 131 

he should employ it as he does without any modify- 
ing epithet (xlviii. 1 1— 13), in contrast with priests, 
and in the sense of those who are disqualified from 
assuming priestly functions. 

" A second point in Ezekiel's Law is a provision 
for stated and regular sacrifices." Nehemiah en- 
gages the people to " a voluntary charge of a third 
of a shekel for this purpose (Neh. x. 32)." " In 
Ex. xxx. 16 the service of the Tabernacle was de- 
frayed by the fixed tribute of half a shekel." If this 
" refers to the continual sacrifices," it differed from 
Nchemiah's rate plainly enough, but it does not fol- 
low that " this law," which bears no evidence of 
being a permanently obligatory precept, " was still 
unknown to Nehemiah, and must be a late addition 
to the Pentateuch." And, on the other hand, if it 
does not refer to them, it is a rash and unwarranted 
conclusion on the part of the Professor that stated 
offerings were ordained with no provision for supply- 
ing them. 

"A third point in Ezekiel's Law," and the last which 
Prof. W. R. Smith insists upon, " is the prominence given to 
the sin-offering and atoning ritual. The altar must be purged 
with sin-offerings for seven consecutive days before burnt 
sacrifices are acceptably offered on it (xliii. 18, seq.). The 
Levitical Law (Ex. xxix. 36, 37-) prescribes a similar cere- 
mony, but with more costly victims. At the dedication of 
Solomon's Temple, on the contrary (1. Kings, viii. 62), the altar 
is at once assumed to be fit for use, in accordance with Ex. 
xx. 24, and with all the early cases of altar-building outside 
the Pentateuch. But, besides this first expiatory ceremonial, 



132 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Ezekiel appoints two atoning services yearly, at the begin- 
ning of the first and the seventh month (xlv. 19, 20, LXX.), 
to purge the house. This is the first appearance, outside of 
the Levitical Code, of anything corresponding to the great 
Day of Atonement in the seventh month, and it is plain that 
the simple service in Ezekiel is still far short of that solemn 
ceremony. The Day of Atonement was also a fast day. 
Now, in Zech. vii. 5, viii. 19, the Fast of the Seventh Month 
is alluded to as one of the four fasts commemorating the 
destruction of Jerusalem, which had been practised for the 
last seventy years. The Fast of the Seventh Month was not 
yet united with the 'purging of the house,' ordained by Eze- 
kiel. Even in the great convocation of Neh. viii.-x., where 
we have a record of proceedings from the first day of the 
seventh month onwards to the twenty-fourth, there is no 
mention of the Day of Expiation on the tenth, which thus 
appears as the very last stone in the ritual edifice." 

Prof. Robertson Smith affirms that there were no 
expiatory rites for cleansing the altar of Solomon's 
Temple ; but the sacred historian, in explicit terms, 
declares the very reverse. In the summary account 
of the transaction given in Kings, the order of the 
ceremonial is not particularly stated, except that 
the services were continued " seven days and seven 
days." This of itself suggests a distinction between 
these two periods, and implies that there was a week 
preliminary to the proper week of the annual feast ; 
and the most obvious purpose of such a week is that 
of sacrificial purgation. This very natural presump- 
tion is confirmed by the express language o.f II. Chron. 
vii. 9 : " they kept the dedication of the altar seven 
days, and the feast seven days." 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. I 33 

The Day of Atonement, it is true, is not mentioned 
by Ezekiel, but his silence does not prove that he 
knew nothing of it. For he likewise makes no allu- 
sion to the Feast of Weeks, which belonged even to 
the first legislation (Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22), and 
this though he speaks of Passover and Tabernacles 
(Ezek. xlv. 21, 25). He does not allude to the daily 
evening sacrifice (1. Kings, xviii. 29, 36; II. Kings, xvi. 
15 ; see Ezek. xlvi. 13 ff.) ; nor to the high-priest ( II. 
Kings, xii. 7, 10, xxii. 4, xxiii. 4) ; nor to the priestly 
dues enjoined in Deut. xviii. 3, (see xliv. 28 ff.). It is 
also true that no mention is made of its observance in 
the Old Testament history, nor in fact for a long time 
after. The earliest allusion * to it is by Josephus 
(Ant. xiv. 16, 4), who tells us that Herod took 
Jerusalem (b. C. 37) on the solemnity of the Fast, 
as Pompey had done twenty-seven years before. 
The Feast of Weeks is spoken of but once between 
Moses and the Exile (1. Kings, ix. 25 ; II. Chron. viii. 
13). The Sabbatical Year is not mentioned until the 
period of the Maccabees (1. Mace. vi. 53). The Fast 
of the Seventh Month, alluded to by Zechariah, in 
commemoration of the murder of Gedaliah (il. Kings, 
xxv. 25), was entirely distinct from the Annual Hu- 
miliation for Sin. The Professor seems to think that 
the Day of Atonement was not instituted for some 
years after the Levitical Law was brought out by 
Ezra. This will involve him in fresh difficulties ; 

1 It is perhaps referred to, though this is not certain, in Josephus, 
Ant. xiii. 10, 3, where the high-priest Hyrcanus is spoken of as alone 
in the Temple, offering incense. 



I 34 PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH 

for, as Delitzsch remarks, it will be necessary to 
exclude from Ezra's Law not only Lev. xvi., where 
the services of the day are described in detail, but 
also all the allusions to it elsewhere, — as Ex. xxx. 
10, which speaks of one annual atonement; Lev. 
xxiii. 26-32, xxv. 9; Num. xviii. 7, which speaks of 
a priestly duty within the Veil ; Num. xxix. 7-1 1 ; 
and all passages containing the name given to the lid 
of the Ark in consequence of the expiation effected 
there, viz., the Mercy-Seat; and it would be very ex- 
traordinary if the ritual of the Day of Atonement, 
in which the Mercy-seat occupies so conspicuous a 
place, dated from a time when the Ark and Mercy- 
seat had ceased to exist. 

It is a significant fact also that Ezekiel's Torah was 
revealed to him (xl. 1) "in the beginning of the 
year, in the tenth day of the month." If the tenth 
of Tisri, the first of the civil year, be meant, this was 
the Day of Atonement, and likewise the day on 
which the trumpet was blown to usher in the Year 
of Jubilee. The combination of this day with the 
release of prisoners is clearly shown by Isai. iviii. 6; 
and that the Prophet was acquainted with the Law 
(Lev. xxv. 8-10) is shown by. his allusion to its 
terms (Isai. lxi. iff.). Ezekiel was acquainted with 
the Year of Jubilee, and speaks of it as well known, 
which consequently involves a knowledge of the Day 
of Atonement, with which it began. 1 

1 We add some further particulars from Delitzsch's very thorough 
and satisfactory discussion of the Day of Atonement, considered in 
relation to this recent critical hypothesis, from which the above discus- 



ON THE PENTATEUCH. 135 

We have now completed our task. And as we lay 
down our pen, may we not say of this latest critical 
attempt to roll the Pentateuch off its old foundations, 
that it has not achieved success? It has enveloped 
Mount Blanc in a cloud of mist, and proclaimed 
that its giant cliffs had forever disappeared. But, lo ! 
the mist blows away, and the everlasting hills are 
still in place. 

sion of this point has been for the most part borrowed. The word 
d12» to fast, which is already found in the prophet Joel, is foreign to 
the law of the Day of Atonement; the standing phrase there is 
11553 t!35» but without using the post-exilic derivative fP^il (Ezra, 
ix. 5). The post-exilic language and literature offer nothing for the 
explanation of pTXT^ \ ^fi^ opportune obvhis (Lev. xvi. 21) and y~i^ 
j-|*I73 terra obscissa (ver. 22) are expressions found nowhere else, which, 
if they were post-exilic, might have been expected to reappear in post- 
biblical writings. 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

r I ^HE period covered by the Books of Samuel is 
**■ so important in its bearing on the question of 
the prior existence of the Law of Moses as to require 
a fuller discussion than was possible within the nar- 
row limits of an article in a quarterly review. The 
proof was there given that the Mosaic Tabernacle 
located at Shiloh was the one sole place of regulaf 
sacrificial worship, from the time when it was set up 
by Joshua until the capture of the Ark by the Philis- 
tines. It was resorted to by all Israel ; the feasts of 
the LORD were annually observed there ; its services 
were conducted by a priesthood descended from 
Aaron. So far as we have any means of ascertain- 
ing, the Mosaic ritual was strictly observed there, 
the contrary assumption being altogether gratuitous, 
since all the alleged departures from that ritual ad- 
mit of ready reconciliation with the legal require- 
ments. There is not, from Joshua to Samuel, a 
recorded instance of sacrifice elsewhere than at Shi- 
loh which is not explicitly declared to have been 
offered either in the presence of the Ark, or in con- 
nection with an immediate manifestation of the pres- 



138 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

ence of Jehovah or' of the Angel of Jehovah. And 
no sacrifice was offered by any one not a descendant 
of Aaron, except when Jehovah or the Angel of 
Jehovah had appeared to him. The only exceptions 
are expressly characterized by the sacred historian 
as open and flagrant transgressions of known law, — 
as the idolatry at Ophrah (judg. viii. 27), and that 
of the renegade Micah (xvii. 5), not to speak of the 
apostasy to Baal and Ashtoreth, which is reprobated 
and chastised from the beginning to the end. The 
Book of Judges does not contain a trace of sanc- 
tioned, or even tolerated, worship upon high places. 
The test applied to Israel was " to know whether they 
would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, 
which He commanded their fathers by the hand of 
Moses" (iii. 4). The hypothesis of Prof. Robertson 
Smith would restrict these commandments to what 
he denominates " the first legislation." But until it 
can be shown that the remaining portions of the 
Mosaic Code were not enacted at the time when they 
claim to have been given, the reference must be un- 
derstood to be to the entire Law of Moses, — a 
meaning which is further rendered necessary by the 
constant usage of this and of equivalent terms in the 
historical books of Scripture (ll. Kings, xxiii. 3, 25 ; I. 
Kings, ii. 3, vi. 12, ix. 4, 6, xi. 33, 38 ; compare Deut. 
viii. 11, xii. 1). 

We approach the life of Samuel, then, from this 
vantage ground afforded by the entire antecedent 
history. The unity of the Sanctuary was unbroken 
from Moses to Eli, unless by confessed idolaters. 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 139 

And the accepted Code of the nation was the Law 
of Moses; and, so far as anything yet appears to the 
contrary, that Law in its entire extent. This was still 
the case in the early years of Samuel. The one Sanc- 
tuary was at Shiloh. It had its Aaronic priesthood. 
It was the place of commanded sacrifice (1. Sam. ii. 
29). There Jehovah dwelt between the cherubim 
above the Ark of the Covenant (iv. 4). To it all 
Israel went to pay their worship (ii. 14, 29, iii. 20, 21). 
Thither the child Samuel was brought by his parents 
to appear before the LORD, and with the expectation 
that he would abide there forever (i. 22). But the 
fatal battle at Eben-ezer, in which the Ark was lost, 
suddenly changed the whole aspect of affairs. We 
never find Samuel, or the Tabernacle, or a priest, or 
a sacrifice in Shiloh again from that time forward. 
Why was this ? 

Whether the Philistines extended their ravages to 
Shiloh, as some have supposed, or not, the city was 
thenceforth regarded as deserted of God. The fact 
that He permitted the priests, who were entrusted 
with the care of the Ark, to be slain, and the Ark 
itself to be carried off by the enemy, was accepted as 
a practical declaration that the Most High had with- 
drawn His presence from the. place, and that He no 
longer acknowledged it as His habitation. This re- 
sult had been predicted to Eli as the inevitable con- 
sequence of the atrocious conduct of his sons (I. Sam. 
ii. 29 ff, iii. 11 ff.), and the corrupt priesthood re- 
flected but too accurately the corruption of the peo- 
ple. The Psalmist thus interprets the event and its 



140 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

moral causes : " They tempted and provoked the 
Most High God and kept not His testimonies. . . . 
They provoked Him to anger with their high places, 
and moved Him to jealousy with their graven im- 
ages. When God heard this, He was wroth and 
greatly abhorred Israel, so that He forsook the Tab- 
ernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among 
men, and delivered His strength into captivity, and 
His glory into the enemy's hand " (Ps. lxxviii. 56-61). 
And the Prophet Jeremiah says (vii. 12): "Go ye 
now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I set 
My name at the first, and see what I did to it for the 
wickedness of My people Israel." (See also xxvi. 6, 
9). Since God was provoked by the sins of the people 
to abandon the Sanctuary which He had established 
in the midst of them, all the sacredness of Shiloh was 
gone. Samuel, therefore, leaves it for his paternal 
home in Ramah (1. Sam. vii. 17) ; and the Mosaic 
Tabernacle was transferred to Nob, which either was 
already, or now became, a city of priests (xxii. 19). 
This was not a different sanctuary, but the same Tab- 
ernacle removed to another place, as appears from 
the identity of the priestly family (xxii. 1 1 ; compare 
xiv. 3) and the mention of the shew-bread (xxi. 6; 
compare Ex. xxv. 30; Lev. xxiv. 8, 9). 

The capture of the Ark signified the withdrawal of 
God's presence from Israel, but it brought no lasting 
triumph to the Philistines. It was the source of 
humiliation to their idol and of deadly plagues upon 
themselves, until, to escape further inflictions, they 
sent it back to the land of Israel, with offerings in 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 14 1 

reparation of their trespass. The joy of the men of 
Beth-shemesh (1. Sam. vi. 13) was based upon the 
premature assumption that Jehovah's gracious pres- 
ence was to be forthwith restored to Israel. The 
ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law were strictly 
observed in its reception. The Levites took down 
the Ark, and burnt-offerings and sacrifices {i.e., 
peace-offerings) were sacrificed before it, — signifi- 
cant of devotion and of restored fellowship with God. 
But the act of irreverent criminality that followed 
was swiftly and terribly punished by the death of 
seventy men of the town and fifty thousand of the 
people at large. 1 The inhabitants of Beth-shemesh 
were terrified in consequence, and the presence of 
the Ark became as intolerable to them as it had been 
to the Philistines. " Who is able to stand before 
Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall He go 
up from us?" This language, uttered in their con- 
sternation, betrayed that they were aware of the 
breach existing between Jehovah and themselves ; 
aware, too, of the fact that in suffering the Ark to be 
removed from them they were consenting to the 
departure of Jehovah Himself. 

The Ark, which contained Israel's most sacred 
treasure, Jehovah's Covenant with them, engraved 
on stone by his own finger, the Ark, which was 

1 This seems to be the simplest explanation of ver. 19, which has 
given a needless amount of trouble to commentators. The offence 
was probably not that of looking into but of looking at the Ark of the 
Lord, which none might see divested of its sacred coverings (Num. 
iv. 5, 20.) 



I42 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

the symbol and seal of God's presence in the midst 
of His people, — which had hitherto been Israel's 
glory and defence, and which had made the Mosaic 
Tabernacle, in a strict and special sense, Jehovah's 
dwelling-place, — was now become an unwelcome 
visitant, suggestive only of danger and of displeasure. 
And it was pushed aside into the obscurity of a pri- 
vate house. It was not taken back to Shiloh, which 
God had deserted. No new sanctuary was provided 
for it; no enthusiastic welcome was accorded to it; 
no crowd of worshippers flocked to the spot to do 
homage to Him who dwelt between the cherubim. 
The only question was how to dispose, of what was 
so fraught with peril to all who were in its vicinity. 
One man was found brave enough and loyal enough 
to open his house for its reception, and to set his son 
apart to guard it until such time as the breach should 
be healed. 

Twenty years passed (i. Sam. vii. 2), and still Israel 
was without the Ark and without a sanctuary. Mean- 
while the heavy pressure of Philistine supremacy at 
length roused in the people a sense of their need of 
His saving help, whom they had alienated. " All 
the house of Israel lamented after the Lord." At 
the instance of Samuel, they put away their strange 
gods and served the Lord only. Shiloh was a sanc- 
tuary no longer. The degenerate priesthood were 
false to their high office. Samuel, as God's accred- 
ited messenger and plenipotentiary, assumed himself 
the functions which they were unworthy to discharge. 
He summoned the people to Mizpeh, who fasted and 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 143 

poured out water before the LORD, in token of 
penitent humiliation. He offered a sucking lamb as 
a whole burnt-offering, in token of the thorough con- 
secration of a new-born people unto God. He cried 
unto the LORD for Israel, and the LORD heard him, 
and granted them a decisive victory over their op- 
pressors at Eben-ezer — the very spot where they 
had previously suffered the overwhelming defeat in 
which the Ark was lost. Hence it appears why 
Mizpeh was selected as the place for this penitent 
assemblage ; it was in order that God's power might 
be signally exerted on His people's behalf upon the 
scene of their former disaster and disgrace, thus 
rendering the fact conspicuous that it had not oc- 
curred through any weakening of His arm of might. 
(Compare Hos. i. 10). The sway of the Philistines 
was thus broken; and, though the struggle between 
them and Israel went fiercely forward for years to 
come, " the hand of the LORD was against the Philis- 
tines all the days of Samuel," and they never again 
regained their former power. 1 (Compare II. Kings 
vi. 23, 24.) 

1 Though not essential to our argument, it will lead to a clearer 
comprehension of the narrative to observe that I. Sam. vii. 13-17 is a 
summary view of the rest of Samuel's life, which is introduced here, 
not because it chronologically belongs before ch. viii., but because the 
writer here, as uniformly throughout the book, formally concludes one 
theme before proceeding to another. With this rapid survey of the 
judgeship and life of Samuel, which in poim of time extends down to 
I. Sam. xxv. 1, he winds up what he has to say of it separately, and 
then passes to the reign of Saul, detailing in ch. viii. ff. the circum- 
stances which led to his appointment as king. In like manner I. Sam. 
xiv. 47-52 brings to a close the first period of Saul's reign, his success- 
ful conduct of Israel's affairs and his victories over surrounding foes. 



144 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

And now we should expect a grateful people to 
have made their submission afre-sh to Him who had 
wrought this glorious deliverance, and to have re- 
posed their unwavering trust and confidence in Him 
as their divine and all-sufficient Helper. Thus the 
way might have been prepared for the Most High 
again to set up His dwelling-place in the midst of 
them. But, instead of this, the next thing that we 
hear (ch. viii.) is the demand of the people, " Make 
us a king to judge us, like all the nations." In this 
crisis of their affairs -r- though the Lord had just 
demonstrated His power and readiness to save a 
penitent and obedient people — they distrust His 
help. Their invisible Sovereign can no. longer con- 
tent them; they must have a king. This inopportune 
request, and the spirit in which it was made, were 
most distressing to Samuel and displeasing to God, 

The writer then enters, in the next chapter, upon the narrative of Saul's 
trespass and rejection, thus preparing the way for the anointing of David 
to be king in his stead. So (n. Sam. viii. 15-18) the summary state- 
ments respecting David's reign and his principal officers conclude the 
account of the early portion of his reign, with its uninterrupted prosper- 
ity and success. The writer is about to enter upon the next period, which 
was marked by David's great sin, and the disturbances which followed in 
its train. Accordingly, after mentioning an incident ( ch. ix) which was 
not only illustrative of David's character, but had a bearing on matters 
to be stated subsequently (xix. 24 ff.), he proceeds at once (ch. x.) with 
the occasion of the campaign against the children of Ammon, in the 
course of which David's crime against Uriah was committed. In like 
manner 11. Sam. xx. 23-26 marks the termination of the next period 
of David's life, in which he has at length succeeded in suppressing all 
rebellion against his royal authority, and thus prepares the way for the 
supplementary and rather miscellaneous incidents that remain to be 
given. 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 145 

who said to his aged Prophet (ver. 7), "They have 
not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I 
should not reign over them." It was the purpose of 
God that the kingdom should be established in Israel. 
It was contemplated in the Mosaic Law itself, and 
provision made for its erection (Deut. xvii. 14). The 
language of this law is incorporated in the narrative 
of this transaction to an extent which plainly shows 
that it was in the mind of Samuel and the people at 
the time ; at least it is so conceived and represented by 
the sacred historian. (See above, p. 65, note.) It 
would not have been wrong for them to ask for a king 
under circumstances and in a manner which did not 
imply a lack of reliance upon God, or a transfer of 
their confidence from Him to another. If they had 
desired a king in the spirit of Pss. xx. and xxi., Samuel 
would not have opposed it, nor would the LORD have 
been offended by it. It was their preferring a king 
above the LORD as their protector, and persisting in 
their wilful choice in spite of the remonstrances of 
the Lord's Prophet and of the plainly expressed dis- 
approval of the LORD Himself, which gave character 
to the whole proceeding; and this is the feature which 
is made prominent in the history. 

The Lord did not refuse the people's request, as 
He would have done if the thing desired had been in 
itself sinful, and the appointment of a king had been 
at variance with the divine constitution of Israel. But 
He granted it in such a way as to teach them that 
while the kingdom, with God's presence and favor, 

might be a great blessing, it would be the reverse if 

10 



146 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

erected and maintained in a spirit of insubordination 
to the divine will and authority. He gave them first 
in Saul a king without God, then in David a king 
after God's own heart. He chose Saul in strict cor- 
respondence with the ideal that the people had in 
mind, a man of goodly person, brave, energetic, and 
capable, who fought their battles valiantly, and was 
victorious over their foes (1 Sam. viii. 19, 20). More- 
over he was a worshipper of Jehovah, and was not 
devoid of religious impulses and a certain measure 
of reverent homage. But he did not place Jehovah's 
service and his sovereignty paramount. He was not 
concerned for the restoration of the Sanctuary. His 
reign was not conducted on the true theocratic prin- 
ciple that Jehovah was the real Monarch of Israel 
and the king was but his vicegerent and deputy ; and 
in his impetuous nature he more than once broke 
loose from the restraints of express divine com- 
mands. 

With the people thus leaning on an arm of flesh, 
and the king in whom they trusted ruling in his self- 
sufficiency, of course the Ark must remain in Kirjath- 
jearim, in the house of Abinadab. The way was not 
prepared for the LORD to come back to his people 
(Isai. xl. 3). He had forsaken Shiloh ; but there 
must be a different state of things, before He could 
properly choose a new sanctuary. This does not 
mean that He had utterly abandoned Israel for the 
time, and withdrawn from them every token of His 
favor; but He had put them under a course of disci- 
pline by giving them that for which they asked, a king 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 147 

to judge them instead of God, and He withdrew 
Himself to await the issue (Hos. v. 15). They were 
in the condition of Absalom, whose crime was so far 
condoned that he was permitted to return to his own 
house, but was forbidden to see the face of the king 
(il. Sam. xiv. 24.) 

But Samuel did not at once abandon hope for the 
people and their king, nor desist from his endeavors 
to bring them to a better mind ; and the LORD em- 
ployed various gracious measures for the same end. 
Samuel anointed Saul, and gave him the kiss either 
of allegiance or of affection. The spirit of the LORD 
came upon him, and God gave him another heart. 
The LORD wrought deliverance by him from the 
Ammonites. And Samuel, in the most earnest and 
touching manner, entreated the people to " turn not 
aside from following the Lord, but to serve the LORD 
with all their heart." And yet Saul's repeated acts 
of disobedience obliged Samuel at last to give him up, 
and to say to him (1. Sam. xv. 26), "thou hast re- 
jected the Word of the Lord, and the LORD hath 
rejected thee from being king over Israel ; " and the 
strong language is used (ver. 35) that " the LORD 
repented that He had made Saul king over Israel." 
And the remainder of his life was filled up with a 
bitter and relentless persecution of David, who by 
divine direction had been anointed in his stead. It 
was a reign without God. Saul had apparently no 
desire to re-establish the Sanctuary of God, or to have 
the Ark brought forth from its obscure retreat. 
Neither the people nor the king returned unto the 



148 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

LORD, and the LORD did not return unto them 
(Mai. iii. 7). 

But David was no sooner established in his kingdom 
than he instituted measures to have the Ark brought 
to his capital. Recognizing the momentous signifi- 
cance of the act, he assembled " all the chosen men of 
Israel, thirty thousand" (u. Sam. vi. 1), and brought it 
up with solemn pomp and numerous sacrifices, abasing 
himself before the Ark in a manner that drew upon 
him the reproaches of his wife, but which he justified 
by the fact that " it was before the LORD " (ver. 21). 
Jehovah had returned to take up his abode amongst 
His people. That this was the point of view from 
which it was regarded by the sacred historian appears 
from the emphasis with which in his mention of the 
Ark, both as taken from Shiloh (1. Sam. iv. 4,) and as 
reinstated in Zion (11. Sam. vi. 2), he associates with 
it " the Lord of Hosts who dwelleth between the 
cherubim." It was not a consecrated vessel, it was 
God Himself, for whom this enthusiastic welcome 
was prepared, and who now fixed His residence on 
Zion with a magnificence that, to the eye of faith, 
equalled His former grand descent on Sinai (Ps. lxviii. 

16 ff.). 

The facts then are these. Jehovah dwelt between 
the cherubim, or sat enthroned above the cherubim, 
that were upon the Ark. Wherever the Ark went, 
Jehovah went. He left Shiloh, and came into the 
camp of Israel. Dagon, in his own temple, fell pros- 
trate and was broken in pieces before Him. His 
hand was laid so heavily upon the Philistines as to 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 149 

compel them to send the Ark back to the land of 
Israel. The violation of its sacredness by the over- 
curious men of Beth-shemesh and by Uzzah was 
punished by sudden death. Jehovah went up from 
Beth-shemesh when the Ark was taken away. He 
came to Zion when the Ark was carried thither. The 
place of the Ark was the place of sacrifice, and, until 
the abandonment of Shiloh, was the only place of 
stated legitimate sacrifice. The Ark is in the history 
exactly what it is in the Levitical Law, with all the 
sacredness and the sanctions and the requirements 
governing its transportation and its custody. 

Such was Israel's estimation of the Ark ; and yet 
the Ark was suffered for more than a generation to 
lie unnoticed and apparently forgotten in the obscur- 
ity of a private house. No sacred tent was erected to 
receive it. No pilgrimages were made to it as always 
heretofore. No festivals were held in its neighbor- 
hood. No sacrifices were offered there. No re- 
sponses were sought or given. No homage was paid. 
There were no attendant priests ; there was no daily 
ceremonial. The historian plainly traces this to the 
terror which it inspired. Israel was afraid to come 
near to this symbol of Jehovah's presence, or to have 
it brought near to them. They were profoundly sen- 
sible of the disharmony that had arisen ; and even 
though " they lamented after the LORD," they kept 
aloof. 1 

Samuel had been trained up from early childhood 
in the Temple at Shiloh, where the Ark of God was. 
He knew that that was the sole place of sacrifice for 

1 See p. 170. 



150 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

all Israel. He knew the meaning and the sacredness 
of the Ark. And yet, from the time that the LORD 
abandoned Shiloh, Samuel forsook it too, and never 
returned. He knew the full significance of the cap- 
ture of the Ark, and of the slaughter of its priestly 
attendants ; and he set himself to heal the breach 
between Jehovah and His people. The promising 
symptoms of the penitent assemblage at Mizpeh were 
soon destroyed by the want of faith in Jehovah, which 
clamored for a king to save them from their enemies, 
in spite of the urgent entreaties of Samuel himself, 
and the disapproval of the LORD. The hope to which 
he still clung, that the people might yet prove faith- 
ful to the LORD after their request had been granted, 
and that Saul might reign as a true servant of Jeho- 
vah, was dimmed and dimmed by successive disap- 
pointments, until it was absolutely quenched by Saul's 
wilfulness and transgression. All that Samuel could 
do further was to anoint David in Saul's stead, and 
wait and pray for better times. 

During all this period of sad degeneracy and earnest 
labors for Israel's reformation, Samuel prayed for the 
people, and pleaded with them, and led their worship. 
He sacrificed at Mizpeh, at Gilgal, at Ramah, at Bethel 
(possibly), and at Bethlehem, but never once at 
Kirjath-jearim. He never assembled the people at or 
near the house of Abinadab. He never took meas- 
ures to have the Ark present at any assembly of the 
people, or upon any occasion of sacrifice. The LORD 
had not indicated His will to establish another sanc- 
tuary, where He might record His name, in place of 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 151 

Shiloh which He had forsaken. Israel was not spirit- 
ually prepared for God's return to dwell among them 
(Josh. xxiv. 19). Matters were not ripe for the re- 
newal of the interrupted covenant relations. Under 
these circumstances it was not regularity of ritual 
which was demanded but a genuine inward reforma- 
tion. 

Jehovah was not a mere tribal god or a national 
deity in any such sense as Dagon was of the Philis- 
tines, Chemosh of Moab, Moloch of Ammon, and 
Baal of the Canaanites. His service was not outward, 
formal, and mechanical. The fundamental demand 
of the covenant was " Ye shall be holy;, for I the 
Lord your God am holy." The Old Testament is 
full of the most explicit assertions that, if this was 
disregarded, the covenant could not be maintained 
(Ex. xxxiii. 3; Deut. iv. 23-26; Amos, iii. 2, 3). 
Sacrifices and lustrations were no acceptable substi- 
tutes for piety of heart and life. The principle by 
which Samuel was actuated throughout is formulated 
by himself (1. Sam. xv. 22, 23), " To obey is better 
than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams ; 
for rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness 
is iniquity and teraphim." The people must be 
brought back to God in penitent submission, before 
He can be brought back to them and own Himself 
once more their God. Samuel was, therefore, labor- 
ing for the re-establishment of the Sanctuary in the 
only way in which it could be effectually brought 
about, so as to be a divine reality and not an empty 
and unmeaning form. 



152 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

It is further to be observed that Samuel was God's 
accredited messenger and representative, charged with 
the declaration of His will to Israel; and we have the 
right to assume that in what he did he was guided by- 
immediate divine direction. So that when he offered 
sacrifices elsewhere than at Shiloh, from which God 
had withdrawn His presence, and when he assumed 
the functions of a priesthood which was unworthy to 
exercise them longer, this was not because every one 
was at liberty to usurp the priestly prerogative at 
will, as Saul found out to his cost, nor because sacri- 
fices might be acceptably offered wherever any one 
chose to offer them, but because the Prophet was in 
all this only the instrument of the divine will. Doubt- 
less Samuel might have said of each act and place of 
sacrifice as Elijah said of his sacrifice at Carmel 
(i. Kings, xviii. 36), "I am thy servant, and I have 
done all these things at thy word." This is in fact 
explicitly recorded of his sacrifice at Bethlehem 
(I. Sam. xvi. 2); compare xiii. 8, 13, where Samuel's 
appointment in relation to a sacrifice is called the 
Lord's commandment. 

The allegation that Samuel's conduct shows him to 
have been ignorant of the Levitical Law, or proves 
that this law was not then in existence, is therefore 
wholly without foundation. He acted upon those 
great underlying principles upon which the ritual 
law itself was based ; and he acted under the imme- 
diate direction of Him by whom that law was given. 
He acted in Israel's defection precisely as the great 
lawgiver himself acted on the occasion of the trans- 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 



53 



gression of the Golden Calf. (See above, p. ioo.) 
Moses and Samuel are accordingly combined by 
Jeremiah xv. I and Ps. xcix, 6, neither the Prophet 
nor the Psalmist conceiving that there was any vari- 
ance between the work of Samuel and the Law of 
Moses rightly understood. If Samuel's conduct can 
be justified notwithstanding his acquaintance with 
the Ark, which cannot be denied, it is equally capa- 
ble of being reconciled and in the very same man- 
ner with his knowledge of the whole round of Mosaic 
institutions. 

But when David removed the Ark from Kirjath- 
jearim, why was it not at once restored to its place in 
the Mosaic Tabernacle, which was then at Gibeon in 
the neighborhood of Jerusalem ? or if it was to be 
taken to Zion, why did he erect a new tent for it there, 
when the Tabernacle of Moses might so easily have 
been brought to Zion likewise? The reason is to be 
sought in the fact that a transition point had now 
been reached in the affairs of Israel. God's earthly 
kingdom was entering upon a fresh stage of its exist- 
ence, and a change should be made in the royal resi- 
dence to correspond with it. " David perceived that 
the LORD had established him king over Israel, and 
that He had exalted his kingdom for His people 
Israel's sake" (n. Sam. v. 12). The migratory period, 
properly represented by the Mosaic tent, was over. 
The unsettled state of things, which had lasted until 
the time of David, the struggle with yet unsub- 
dued Canaanites, and the wars with the Philistines, who 
were lately dominant, had at length come to an end, 



154 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

and Israel had gained complete and undisturbed pos- 
session of the land which the LORD had given them. 
It was fit that God's dwelling-place in Israel should 
no longer be a movable tent, such as was constructed 
for the march through the desert, or was adapted to 
the troublous times which had witnessed and com- 
pelled its transportation from Shiloh to Nob, and from 
Nob to Gibeon. God had now given firm establish- 
ment to His people, and His abode among them ought 
henceforth to assume the character of a fixed and 
permanent habitation (i. Chron. xxiii. 25, 26). He 
had granted prosperity and rich abundance to the 
kingdom, and this should be reflected in the royal 
palace; "the house to be builded for the LORD 
must be exceeding magnifical, of fame and of glory 
throughout all countries " (1. Chron. xxii. 5). 

Accordingly David did not replace the Ark in the 
Mosaic Tabernacle, inasmuch as this was not such a 
house as it was fitting for Jehovah to have thenceforth 
in Israel. He set it in a tent which he had pitched 
for its temporary accommodation (11. Sam. vi. 17). 
And the very next record in the history is his pro- 
posal to erect a temple (ch. vii). . This project, which 
was carried into effect by Solomon, was the guiding 
idea of David's reign, who made extensive prepara- 
tions for it by the treasures amassed in his various 
wars (11. Sam. viii. II ; I. Kings, vii. 51). Hence for 
the remainder of David's reign there were two heads 
of the priestly order (11. Sam. viii. 17, xv. 24-29, 35, 
xx. 25), instead of one as at every other period before 
and after. These represented two distinct lines of 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 155 

descent from Aaron : Zadok, who was of the family 
of Eleazar, ministered in the Mosaic Tabernacle at 
Gibeon ; and Abiathar or his son Ahimelech, of the 
family of Ithamar, ministered before the Ark on 
Zion (1. Chron. xvi. 39, xxiv. 3). This duplication 
ceased with the defection and deposition of Abiathar 
(i. Kings, ii. 26, 27), which fixed the priesthood in the 
line of Phinehas, as had been predicted long before 
(Num. xxv. 11— 13 ; I. Sam. ii. 30 ff.). 

From the abandonment of Shiloh to the erection of 
the Temple of. Solomon, the worship on high places 
was allowable (1. Kings, iii. 2), as it had not been 
before and was not afterwards. During this interval 
there was no " place which the LORD had chosen to 
put His name there," so that the law of the unity of 
the Sanctuary was necessarily in abeyance (Deut. xii. 
5 ff.). But from the time of Solomon onward, high 
places are nowhere sanctioned, directly or by impli- 
cation. The idolatrous high places built by Solomon 
for his foreign wives (i. Kings, xi. 7, 8 ; II. Kings, xxiii. 
13) were in palpable violation of Jehovah's covenant; 
so were those that were frequented in the reign of 
Rehoboam and other ungodly kings (l. Kings, xiv. 
22-24). The fact that " the high places were not re- 
moved," even under such pious kings as Asa (1. Kings, 
xv. 14), Jehoshaphat (xxii. 43), Joash (II. Kings, 
xii. 3), Amaziah (xiv. 4), Uzziah (xv. 4), and Jotham 
(ver. 35) is confessedly disapproved by the author of 
the Books of Kings (compare also I. Kings, xiii. 32, 
33 ; II. Kings, xvii. 9, xxi. 3) ; and it implies no sanction 
on the part of these monarchs, but simply that they 



156 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

were not able to effect their extirpation, and perhaps 
were not as zealous in the matter as they should have 
been. That they did seek to remove them, and with 
a measure of success, is explicitly affirmed by the 
author of Chronicles (11. Chron. xiv. 3-5, xvii. 6) ; 
and this is not contradicted by anything in Kings. 
Some of these high places were dedicated to the wor- 
ship of Jehovah (11. Kings, xviii. 22 ; Isai. xxxvi. 7 ; 
II. Chron. xxxiii. 17), and Levitical priests officiated 
at them (11. Kings, xxiii. 9); but this does not dis- 
prove the existence of the law forbidding them, any 
more than the corruptions of the Middle Ages would 
justify the assumption that the New Testament had 
not yet been written. And if the worship on high 
places was accounted legitimate until the reign of 
Hezekiah, how comes it to pass that there is not a 
trace of such a view in the Psalms or in the older 
Prophets ? God is invoked and described as dwelling 
in Zion ; no other habitation is' ever alluded to, no 
other Sanctuary is ever mentioned with approval. 
The critics tell us that it is the character of the wor- 
ship offered on the high places, and not the high 
places themselves, which the Prophets condemn. But 
the fact is that no mention is made in the entire body 
of the prophetical writings of a single high place 
where pure and acceptable worship was offered, or 
to which it was proper to resort. The people are 
never told that they may sacrifice on the high hills 
and under green trees, or at Bethel and Gilgal and 
Beersheba, if only they sacrifice to the LORD alone 
and in a proper manner. They are never told that 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 1 57 

God will be pleased with the erection of numerous 
altars, provided the service upon them is rightly con- 
ducted. 

It cannot be pretended that the Prophets of Judah 
look otherwise than with disfavor upon the worship on 
high places. This is acknowledged of Jeremiah (iii. 
2, vii. 31, xvii. 1-3) and of all the Prophets after his 
time. (Compare Ezek. vi. 3, 6, xvi. 16, xx. 27-29.) 
It is equally plain in Joel (ii. 1, 15, 32, iii. 16, 17, 21), 
Obadiah (vers. 16, 17, 21), Micah, (i. 5, iv. 1, 2, 7), 
and Isaiah (not to repeat passages already cited, 
p. 119, xi. 9, xii. 6, xviii. 7, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 13, 
xxviii. 16, xxix. 1, 8, xxx. 29, xxxi. 4, 9). 

But it is urged that the antithesis suggested by 
Hosea and Amos, who prophesied in the Northern 
Kingdom, is not between the worship on high places 
and worship at Jerusalem, but between high places 
and the true service of Jehovah, showing that it was 
not the unity of the Sanctuary but purity of worship 
which they had at heart. We not only freely admit 
but strenuously insist that purity is above unity and 
unity is for the sake of purity. This attitude of the 
Prophets, however, so far from conflicting with the 
Levitical and Deuteronomi-c codes, or showing that 
the Prophets were unacquainted with them and with 
their binding authority, is identical with the openly 
professed intent of these codes themselves (Lev. xvii. 
3-7; Deut. xii. 2-5). It would not be strange if some 
leniency were shown to the pious among the Ten 
Tribes in this matter, and if irregularities were consid- 
ered excusable in their case, which the exigencies of 



158 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

their situation rendered, if not unavoidable, yet ex- 
tremely natural. Nevertheless even here there is not 
a word that directly or positively sanctions worship on 
any high place, or in any other than the one sole 
Sanctuary. 

If a pure worship, freed from idolatrous adjuncts 
and from carnal enticements, was maintained in the 
Sanctuary on Mount Zion alone, then Hosea's appeal 
to his hearers to abandon Gilgal and Bethel, as in- 
compatible with a true reverence for Jehovah (iv. 15, 
ix. 15), his affirmation that snares are laid on Mizpeh 
and a net spread upon Tabor (v. 1), his rebuke of 
multiplied altars (viii. 11, x. 1, xii. 11), and his de- 
nunciation of judgment on Bethel and its high places 
(x. 8, 15), are equivalent to so many exhortations to 
his hearers to frequent the one place of true worship, 
and must have been so understood by them. Then, 
too, when Amos opposes seeking Bethel and Dan 
and Gilgal and Beersheba to seeking the LORD (iv. 4, 
v. 4-6, viii. 14), or threatens desolation to the high 
places of Isaac and the sanctuaries of Israel (iii. 14, 
vii. 9), he is in effect recalling the transgressing peo- 
ple to the worship at Jerusalem.' If, however, it be 
maintained that there were other sanctuaries than 
that on Zion where the. worship was pure, and that 
Hosea and Amos had these in mind, we wait for the 
proof of an assertion which Hosea and Amos cer- 
tainly do not make, which is directly counter to the 
testimony of other Prophets, which finds no confirma- 
tion in the expressed views of the sacred historians 
or in any known facts of the history, but is simply 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 159 

assumed in the interest of a critical hypothesis. 
Moreover, Amos expressly affirms that Zion is Je- 
hovah's Seat, from which He sends forth the utter- 
ances of His might (i. 2) ; and both he and Hosea 
range themselves in line with the Prophets of Judah 
by their recognition of the fact that the rightful sway 
over Israel belonged to David's Royal House (Hos. 
iii. 5, viii. 4; Amos, ix. 11). 

We are now prepared to estimate the following 
paragraph from Prof. Robertson Smith (p. 235): 
" The earlier history relates scarcely one event of 
importance that was not transacted at a holy place. 
The local sanctuaries were the centres of all Hebrew 
life. How little of the history would remain if She- 
chem and Bethel, the two Mizpehs and Ophrah, Gilgal, 
Ramah and Gibeon, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beer- 
sheba, Kedesh and Mahanaim, Tabor and Carmel 
were blotted out of the pages of the Old Testament." 

1. Of the fifteen places thus promiscuously thrown 
together, there are three, viz., Mizpeh (east of Jor- 
dan), Kedesh, and Mahanaim, in which there is no 
recorded instance of sacrifice in post-Mosaic times ; 
and, in two of them, there is no mention of sacrifice 
at any time, whether before the age of Moses or after 
it. Mizpeh, where Jacob and Laban covenanted and 
offered sacrifice (Gen. xxxi. 49, 54), and Mahanaim, 
where the angels met Jacob (xxxii. 2), like other 
spots memorable in the lives of the Patriarchs, and 
like Bannockburn, Bunker Hill, and Gettysburg in 
more modern times, were hallowed by their asso- 
ciations, and were for that reason likely to be selected 



l6o THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

for patriotic gatherings or for important uses. The 
children of Israel assembled at Mizpeh to oppose the 
Ammonites (Judg. x. 17) ; and if, as seems probable, 
it was the same as Ramoth-gilead (Josh. xiii. 26), it 
was one of the cities of refuge (xx. 8). Mahanaim 
was a Levitical city (xxi. 38), the capital of Ish- 
bosheth's kingdom (11. Sam. ii. 8), and the place to 
which David fled from Absalom (xvii. 24) ; and Cant, 
vi. 13 speaks somewhat obscurely of " the dance of 
Mahanaim." But there is nothing that implies that 
either was a sanctuary for worship. Jephthah is 
said (Judg. xi. 11) to have "uttered all his words 
before the Lord in Mizpeh." But so David and 
Jonathan made a covenant " before the Lord " in 
the wood where the former was hiding (1. Sam. xxiii. 
18). David walked " before the LORD " in the whole 
of his pious life (1. Kings, iii. 6), as did Jotham (ii. 
Chron. xxvii. 6) and Hezekiah (xxxi. 20). The 
foes of Asa were destroyed " before the Lord " in 
battle (11. Chron. xiv. 13). Manasseh humbled him- 
self " before the LORD " in his captivity at Babylon 
(xxxiii. 12,23). Nehemiah (L 4) prayed "before 
the God of Heaven " in the capital of Persia. 

The Professor tells us (p. 424) that Kedesh, which 
was a Levitical city and a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 
32), and where Barak marshalled his army against 
Sisera (Judg. iv. 10), " is proved by its very name" 
to have been a sanctuary; but he fails to inform us 
when or by whom this name was imposed and what 
gave occasion to its being called a consecrated place. 
The argument is as faulty as that (p. 323) from 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. l6l 

"Deut. i.i, and other similar passages, where the 
land east of the Jordan is said to be across Jordan, 
proving that the writer lived in Western Palestine ; " 
as though Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul 
changed names to the old Roman generals as often 
as they crossed the Alps. Or it may be "classed with 
his inference that the use of Negcb for " south " and 
sea for "west" " proves quite unambiguously that the 
Pentateuch was written in Canaan ; " and by parity 
of reasoning we may infer that September is the 
seventh month of the year, that landlords are always 
owners of real estate, and that lunacy is produced 
by the influence of the moon. There is no more 
familiar phenomenon in language than that words 
often retain their secondary senses, even when these 
have ceased to be in accord with their primary 
sense. 

2. Three others in the above list of alleged Israel- 
itish sanctuaries, viz., Shechem, Beersheba, and 
Tabor, were places of idolatrous worship only, so far 
as we know, in post-Mosaic times. Shechem con- 
tained a temple of Baal-berith (Judg. ix. 4, 27, 46). 
Amos uttered his warnings against the sinful worship 
of Beersheba (v. 5, viii. 14), and Hosea against the 
net spread upon Tabor (v. 1). But there is no inti- 
mation that any other style of worship was maintained 
in these places, or in any one of them. Shechem, by 
the oak of Moreh, was Abram's first abode in the 
Promised Land ; there the LORD appeared to him and 
he builded an altar (Gen. xii. 6, 7). Jacob came 
back to Shechem on his return from Padan-aram, and 

11 



1 62 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

he erected an altar there (xxxiii. 18, 20) ; and all the 
strange gods and idolatrous emblems of his house- 
hold were buried under the oak by the city (xxxv. 
4). In memory of these facts Joshua assembled the 
people at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 1) when he would 
urge them to put away their strange gods (vers. 14, 
23), and he set up a monumental stone (ver. 26) 
under the old oak which still continued to stand — 
not " by,"' as the English Version has it, but as it is 
in the Hebrew — " in the sanctuary of the LORD." 
The very form of the expression shows us that the 
sanctuary here spoken of was not a building, and 
there is no intimation that sacrifices were offered 
there upon this or any subsequent occasion ; it was 
simply a spot venerated from its ancient and sacred 
associations. The place gained new sacredness from 
these parting counsels of Joshua, and was hence 
selected for the coronation of Abimelech (Judges 
ix. 6) and of Rehoboam (1. Kings, xii. 1), and for 
the royal residence of Jeroboam (ver. 25). It was 
also one of the cities of refuge (Josh. xx. 7) ; but it 
is nowhere affirmed or implied that it was a sanctuary 
for the worship of Jehovah. 

The LORD appeared to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 23-25) 
and subsequently to Jacob (xlvi. 1 . ) in Beersheba, both 
of whom offered sacrifices there. It was also the scene 
of an interesting incident in the life of Abraham, who 
also worshipped there (xxi. 31, 33). This ancient 
sacredness no doubt contributed to its selection as 
one of the chief seats of idolatry in later times. The 
lofty summit of Tabor sufficiently accounts for its 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 163 

becoming a place of idolatrous sacrifice(Hos. iv. 13). 
The suggestion (p. 424) that it is " alluded to in 
Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19, as the Sanctuary" of Zebulun 
and Issachar, is wholly without foundation. 

3. Six of the alleged sanctuaries are places where 
sacrifices were offered on some special occasion or 
during some brief period, but were not, so far as there 
is any record upon the subject, permanent places of 
sacrifice. We read of offerings in five of these places 
in the provisional period from Samuel to Solomon, 
and in that exclusively; they are Mizpeh (west of 
Jordan), Ramah, Gibeon, Hebron, and Bethlehem. 
The one offering spoken of at Mizpeh (1. Sam. vii. 
5, 9) was by Samuel when the place of Israel's defeat 
was by divine help converted into one of victory (see 
above, p. 143). It is with allusion to this event that 
Mizpeh is said (1. Mace. iii. 46) to have been " a place 
of prayer aforetime for Israel." In I. Sam. x. 17 this 
same spot was significantly selected for the gathering 
of the people " unto the LORD," when Samuel recited 
God's gracious acts of deliverance, which in their de- 
mand of a king they had so sinfully disregarded ; but 
no mention is made of sacrifice. Nor was any sacri- 
fice offered when the people were gathered " unto the 
Lord" in Mizpeh (Judg. xx. 1), to go up to battle 
against Benjamin. The reason why they met there 
was not the superior sacredness of the place, but its 
proximity to Gibeah where the crime had been com- 
mitted. It was a convenient point for negotiations 
with Benjamin (ver. 12), or if need be for hostilities 
against them. When they desired to ask counsel of 



1 64 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

God (vers. 18, 27), or to offer sacrifices (ver. 26, xxi. 
4), they went for the purpose to Bethel, to which the 
Ark was temporarily brought from Shiloh for the 
occasion. Samuel judged Israel in Mizpeh from year 
to year (I. Sam. vii. 16); but he is nowhere said to 
have offered more than the one sacrifice there. 

Ramah was another place of Samuel's judgment, 
and there he built an altar unto the LORD (ver. 17) ; 
this was the scene of the sacrifice spoken of, ix. 12. 
Gibeon was "the great high place" (I. Kings, hi. 4) in 
the early years of Solomon, because the Mosaic Tab- 
ernaclewas there (u. Chron. i. 3, 13). Hebron, where 
Abraham dwelt and built an altar (Gen. xiii. 18), and 
where Jacob lived (xxxvii. 14), was a priestly city and 
a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 13). David went thither 
by divine direction (11. Sam. ii. 1), and was anointed 
king over Judah (ver. 4), and . subsequently king over 
Israel, after making a league there with the elders of 
the people " before the LORD" (v. 3) ; % but the only 
thing recorded which implies a sacrificial service 
there, is Absalom's vow (xv. 7-9). Samuel by God's 
command offered a sacrifice in Bethlehem (1. Sam. 
xvi. 2 ff.) ; and David's family held a yearly sacrifice 
there (xx. 6). All the offerings now recited occur in 
the interval between God's forsaking Shiloh and the 
building of the Temple, which has been already suffi- 
ciently discussed. There is no hint of post-Mosaic 
sacrifices at any of these places before or after this 
term of the cessation of the divinely instituted Sanc- 
tuary. 

Elijah, acting under express divine orders (1 Kings, 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 1 65 

xviii. 36), offered his sacrifice at Carmel, repairing for 
the purpose the previously existing altar of the LORD 
which had been broken down (ver. 30). This shows, 
as we learn further from xix. 14, that the pious in the 
apostate Kingdom of Israel, who were cut off from 
attendance at Jerusalem, preferred to sacrifice in an 
irregular manner rather than be precluded from offer- 
ing to Jehovah altogether. This neither implies igno- 
rance of the Mosaic Law, nor a wanton disregard of it. 
It is a breach of outward order for the sake of preserv- 
ing God's worship from extinction. The forced con- 
struction of Mic. vii. 14, which makes it declare that 
God dwells in the midst of Carmel, and in which 
Baudissin A follows Hitzig, will probably commend 
itself to few. There is no reason to suppose that the 
Professor adopts it. 

4. But three of the alleged sanctuaries remain, viz., 
Bethel, Ophrah, and Gilgal, in each of which sacrifices 
were offered upon special occasions only, and for 
assignable reasons ; and each subsequently became 
a seat of idolatry. Gideon's present of a kid and 
unleavened cakes was converted into a sacrifice by 
the Angel of the Lord who appeared to him in 
Ophrah (Judg. vi. 20, 21), whereupon he built a 
memorial altar (ver. 24) ; afterwards by express divine 
command he threw down the altar of Baal, erected one 
to Jehovah in its stead, and offered a bullock upon it 
(vers. 25 ff.). An ephod, which he set up in Ophrah, 
was perverted to an idolatrous use (viii. 27). Bethel, 

1 Article " Hohendienst," p. 183, in Herzog und Plitt's Real- 
Encyclopaedie. 



1 66 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 

where God appeared twice to Jacob (Gen. xxviii. ioff., 
xxxv. 9 ff.), was temporarily a place of sacrifice dur- 
ing the presence of the Ark (Judg. xx. 18, 26, 27); 
and, when the regular services of the Sanctuary were 
suspended in the time of Samuel, mention is made of 
men going up with their offerings to God to Bethel 
(1. Sam. x. 3). These sacred associations no doubt 
influenced Jeroboam in determining to set up one of 
his Golden Calves at Bethel (1. Kings, xii. 29). 

Gilgal, which was Israel's first encampment in the 
Holy Land (Josh. iv. 19), and where they renewed 
their covenant with God by circumcision and the 
Passover after the long period of alienation and wan- 
dering in the Wilderness (v. 2 ff.), was selected by 
Samuel with a view to these old memories as one of 
his places of judgment (1. Sam. vii. 16), and particu- 
larly for the sacrifices by which the kingdom was 
inaugurated (x. 8, xi. 14, 15), as he sought to reclaim 
the people from their forgetfulness and rejection of 
the LORD. And it was here that Saul's repeated acts 
of disobedience (xiii. 9 ff., xv. 15 ff.) destroyed every 
hope that the ancient experience of Gilgal might be 
repeated, so long as he sat upon the throne. This 
consecrated spot was for that very reason chosen 
by idolaters for their worship (Judg. iii. 19, — where 
" quarries " of the English version should be " ima- 
ges," — Hos. iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 11 ; Amos, iv. 4). 

We have now gone with some care through the 
entire list of what the Professor calls " local sanctua- 
ries ; " and the facts show that apart from idolatrous 
perversions, there was not a single sanctuary for per- 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 167 

manent worship among them. Deduct the two or 
three instances, in the period of the Judges, in which 
Jehovah or the Angel of Jehovah appeared to men, 
and sacrifices were offered on the spot, — deduct fur- 
ther the sacrifices offered when Israel had no sanctu- 
ary, after God had withdrawn from Shiloh and before 
the Temple was built, or in the peculiar circumstances 
of the Ten Tribes in the lifetime of Elijah, — deduct 
these sacrifices which were due to special causes and 
were strictly limited to the occasion that called them 
forth, and there is not a particle of evidence that any 
one of these places was a sanctuary for the worship 
of Jehovah. This whole hypothesis of " local sanc- 
tuaries " rests on absolutely unsupported conjecture. 
With a total disregard of the considerations that rule 
in some exceptional case, the conclusion is at once 
drawn that it represents a permanent and habitual 
course of action. Each instance of special sacrifice 
is adduced as evidence of a new sanctuary. By a 
like process of argument, some future historian of the 
American Colonies may infer from the fact that the 
Continental Congress met at various places during 
the exigencies of the Revolutionary War, that Lancas- 
ter, York, Princeton, and Annapolis were all perma- 
nent capitals like Philadelphia, and that instead of 
one united body of representatives from all the colo- 
nies, there must have been several distinct bodies 
holding their sessions simultaneously and meeting 
continuously at these different points. 

The question here recurs : Do the known facts re- 
specting Israel's worship militate against the Mosaic 



1 68 THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES, 

origin of the Pentateuchal laws? The critics tell us 
that the law of the unity of the Sanctuary was con- 
stantly disobeyed until the time of Josiah, — that pre- 
vious to his reign, both the ungodly and the godly 
portion of the people, both wicked and pious princes, 
act in a manner which shows that no such law was 
known to them or heeded by them. Josiah's vigo- 
rous reforms must accordingly mark the first serious 
attempt to introduce this law, and Deuteronomy must 
be dated from his reign, or shortly before it. 

Now, what is the real state of the case? The Ark 
of the covenant and the Mosaic Tabernacle constituted 
the sole Sanctuary of Jehovah from the entrance into 
Canaan until the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. 
From that time until the Ark was taken to Zion it was 
simply lodged in a private house, and no sacrifices 
were offered before it; but Samuel and others sacri- 
ficed in different parts of the land. A time so evi- 
dently anomalous, however, supplies no criterion for a 
normal state of affairs. It cannot be inferred that 
there was no law restricting sacrificial worship to the 
Sanctuary, because this restriction was not observed 
when no sanctuary existed. Would any one think of 
arguing that Washington City was not the legally es- 
tablished seat of government in the United States, 
because the President and Congress were dislodged 
by the burning of the Capitol and other public build- 
ings in 1 8 14, — or that England is not by its consti- 
tution a hereditary monarchy, because Oliver Crom- 
well ruled as Protector? 

From the time that the Ark was lodged in Solo- 



THE WORSHIP IN HIGH PLACES. 169 

mon's Temple and the divine glory took manifest 
possession of it, this was Israel's exclusive Sanctuary. 
And the attempt to disprove this by urging the sub- 
sequent existence of high places, which the sacred 
historian condemns and which the Prophets with one 
voice disallow, is as though some one were to infer 
that no prohibitory law had ever been passed in 
Maine, because liquor continues to be sold in the 
State, and that, as is alleged, with the connivance of 
officers elected on the temperance ticket. There was 
but one Ark from the days of Moses to the Babylo- 
nish captivity, and Jehovah dwelt between its cheru- 
bim. This fact, which can neither be denied nor 
explained away, is the impregnable stronghold of our 
position. 

And let it be remembered that the preceding argu- 
ment has been conducted without the aid which we 
are entitled to draw from the Books of Chronicles. 
It is confessed by all that if their testimony is admit- 
ted into the case, the Mosaic origin of the institutions 
of the Pentateuch is unassailable. 



ADDENDUM 

To Page 149, Line 4 from bottom. 

And in the very midst of the glad and triumphal 
transportation of the Ark to the city of David, the 
whole proceeding was suddenly arrested by the mani- 
festation of Jehovah's displeasure, in the death of 
Uzzah. David feared to take the Ark further, and it 
was once more deposited in a private house. There 
it remained for three months, until the blessing be- 
stowed upon the house of Obed-edom, because of the 
Ark, gave assurance that the anger of the Lord was 
turned away, and His favor was again restored to His 
people. 



KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS AND 
PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 



KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS AND PROPH- 
ECY IN ISRAEL. 



r I ^HE recent work by Professor Kuenen, of the 
"*■ University of Leyden, entitled " The Prophets 
and Prophecy in Israel," * is written from the stand- 
point of the most ultra criticism and of absolute anti- 
supernaturalism. The concurrent judgment of all 
past ages has found a surprising coincidence between 
the predictions of these Prophets and the facts of sub- 
sequent history. The defenders of revealed religion 
have esteemed this one of the firm bulwarks of their 
faith, and have ranked it among the convincing evi- 
dences of the divinity and inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures. They, to whom the Scriptures were not in any 
supernatural sense the Word of God, have confessed 
the potency of this argument by the extraordinary 
pains which they have taken to rid themselves of it 
by every expedient of criticism and exegesis. But 
withal they have not been, in Dr. Kuenen's opinion, 

1 " The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel." An Historical and 
Critical Enquiry, by Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology in the 
University of Leyden. Translated from the Dutch by the Rev. Adam 
Milroy, M.A., with an Introduction by J. Muir, Esq., D.C.L. Lon- 
don: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877. 8vo, pp. 593. 



174 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

sufficiently thorough-going. " The supporters of the 
naturalistic hypothesis themselves," he says (p. 6), 
" do not maintain it in a thorough and consistent 
manner, but in their description of Israelitish proph- 
ecy introduced features which are borrowed from the 
traditional theory, or at least find there alone their 
proper place." 

This weakness and inconsistency he proposes utterly 
to eschew. He would relieve the hypothesis of the 
purely human origin of the Bible from the burden by 
which it has hitherto been pressed. With this view, 
he denies the existence of any such correspondence 
between prophecy and the event as has been hitherto 
claimed by believers, and confessed to no small extent 
even by those who dispute its supernatural inspira- 
tion. He undertakes to point out in detail that a large 
proportion of the prophecies have never been fulfilled 
at all in any proper sense, and that the fulfilment of 
many more has been but partial. And he makes this 
the basis of his entire argument to discredit their 
divine origin. If it be true that the major part of 
these predictions have not been fulfilled, then they 
are certainly not from. God, and the comparatively 
few instances in which they have been verified in fact 
must be otherwise accounted for. They may have 
been shrewd conjectures, or the prophecy may have 
wrought its own fulfilment by its influence on those 
to whom it was addressed, or the coincidence may be 
purely accidental. In the introduction John Muir, 
Esq., of Edinburgh, at whose solicitation the volume 
was prepared and to whom it is dedicated, thus ex- 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 1 75 

presses his confident persuasion of the cogency of 
the argument (p. xxxix) : " The ample and satisfac- 
tory proofs which Professor Kuenen has adduced in 
support of his conclusions must, I think, produce a 
powerful effect on all candid inquirers who study them 
with care and attention, and tend to bring about in 
the minds of thoughtful men a great change of opin- 
ion in regard to the authority and the character of 
the Scriptures, whether of the Old or of the New 
Testaments." 

We do not share this judgment. We have no idea 
that any serious revolution of opinion will result from 
this publication. We make no pretence to under- 
estimate the learning and ability which it displays, 
nor the consummate art shown by Professor Kuenen 
in the presentation of his views. But we need not 
shrink from having the most searching test applied 
to secure foundations. The accomplishment of the 
predictions of the Prophets is not a question of 
recent origin or of uncertain issue. And the con- 
viction which the Christian world has reached upon 
this subject is no mere prejudice blindly adopted, 
nor a hasty judgment formed after slight considera- 
tion and resting upon inadequate grounds, and liable 
consequently to be set aside by more thorough and 
searching inquiry. Every element that can possibly 
affect the settlement of this question has long since 
been brought forward and subjected" to the most 
rigorous tests. The prophecies are before us. The 
facts of history are known at least in their main 
features. The correspondence is a palpable one, 



176 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

and no learned ingenuity can obliterate it. Every 
line in ancient authors that has any possible relation 
to this subject, near or remote, has long ago been 
adduced and diligently scanned. Buried monuments 
continue to be exhumed and are throwing welcome 
light on remaining obscurities, but these cannot revo- 
lutionize all history nor disturb well-known and well- 
attested facts. There is not a fact nor a historical 
testimony brought forward in this volume, as contra- 
vening or appearing to contravene what was foretold 
by the Prophets, that has not been elaborately dis- 
cussed before in all its bearings and its full significance 
ascertained. It is not likely, consequently, that their 
fresh production now will occasion any great shock or 
be attended by important changes in well-established 
views. If there be anything in particular which can 
be called novel in Professor Kuenen's line of argu- 
ment, it is the bravery with which he carries through 
what is known among logicians as the petitio principii, 
or begging the question, — covertly assuming the 
point at issue, and then working it out to an apparent 
demonstration. The prophecies are dealt with on the 
assumption that they are a merely human production ; 
and then the conclusion that they are merely human 
necessarily follows. 

The question at issue is indeed, as Professor Kuenen 
observes (p. 5), " closely connected with the deepest 
needs and the most important interests of mankind ; 
and these have nothing to fear from the truth." We 
confess, however, that we see no good reason to in- 
dulge the hope, which he cherishes, that a speedy and 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 177 

decisive settlement can be reached which shall com- 
pel the assent of all parties. " It is," he says, " an 
historical problem. Every one knows the sources 
which must be consulted for its solution." Neverthe- 
less his own volume forces the conviction upon us 
afresh that the time has not yet arrived for terminat- 
ing the long controversy of ages. His own con- 
clusions rest not on the historical data, but on the 
" dogmatic presuppositions " with which these have 
been approached, notwithstanding his repeated pro- 
fession that he is wholly emancipated from such influ- 
ences. Starting with the convictions that he has, he 
could arrive at no other result than he does ; but they 
who entertain contrary convictions will not find it nec- 
essary to follow him. The recognition or the rejec- 
tion of the divine and the supernatural is not a mere 
act of the intellect freely balancing intellectual con- 
siderations. There is an antecedent bias from each 
man's spiritual attitude. To him who is prepared to 
admit the reality of immediate communications from 
God to men upon rational evidence, the facts supply 
a convincing demonstration ; while he to whom such 
communications are a priori inadmissible will either 
refuse to admit the facts or put some different inter- 
pretation upon them. It is this element of the will, 
entering into and influencing our judgments respect- 
ing divine and spiritual things, which gives them their 
moral character and makes every man morally re- 
sponsible for his belief. 

According to Dr. Kuenen's view, as stated by him- 
self, " prophecy is one of the most important and 

12 



178 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

remarkable phenomena in the history of religion, but 
just on that account a human phenomenon, proceed- 
ing from Israel, directed to Israel." It is from God 
in no other sense than as " from Him are all things." 
It is " a testimony not as out of heaven to us, but a 
testimony to men's need, and to Israel's peculiar des- 
tination to ' seek the Lord, if haply they might feel 
after Him and find Him,' " — a destination, by the 
way, which in the Scriptures is ascribed not to Israel, 
t>ut to the Gentiles before Christ's coming. " A 
preparation for Christianity? Yes; but in another 
sense than that which tradition means by these 
words, — no prediction of facts in the life of Christ, 
but a preparation of the soil out of which Christ- 
ianity was to spring, the prelude to the new relig- 
ious creation which mankind owe to Jesus of 
Nazareth" (pp. 4, 5). 

He seeks to conciliate favor for this view by calling 
it the historico-critical, or organic, as distinguished 
from the traditional. We cannot concede the pro- 
priety of this designation. . The organic view of 
prophecy is not only entirely consistent with the 
supernatural conception of its origin and character, 
but is held as firmly by those who maintain its divin- 
ity and inspiration as by those who deny it. Its or- 
ganic nature is dependent not on the question of its 
origin, but of its structure and relations. Prophecy 
grew directly out of the heart of the Israelitish peo- 
ple, took its shape from their necessities, was moulded 
by their changing circumstances age by age, and had 
its regular and consistent unfolding from first to last. 



AXD PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. I 79 

That all was nevertheless due to the immediate im- 
pulses of the Divine Spirit no more disturbs its hu- 
man adaptations than the organic structure of a tree 
is damaged by the sunlight which produces it. It is 
the attempted elimination of the supernatural which 
is really at war with the organism of prophecy; for 
this deprives it of its necessary point of departure by 
first sweeping away the Mosaic revelation ; it annihil- 
ates the vital force which gave it being, and, by the 
necessity under which it is of dislocating its several 
parts, shows them in a false juxtaposition, and sets 
aside the evidence of the genetic process through 
which it has passed. 

And the naturalistic is so far from being the his- 
torico-critical method that it really sets at defiance a 
sound historical criticism, and bases itself on the 
wildest and most unsupported vagaries instead. We 
do not shut our eyes to the good service which 
critics, even of the most ultra type, have rendered 
to biblical studies by their investigations and dis- 
cussions. They have ruthlessly run their plough- 
share through what is venerable and sacred, yet they 
have, after all, aided in opening up the soil for culti- 
vation, and have brought much that is valuable to the 
surface. And supernaturalists have not disdained to 
learn from their antagonists. Dr. Kuenen points to 
this with a triumphant air, and hastily infers (p. 7) : 
" The dissolution of the traditional theory is already 
in rapid progess. It is with it as with a beleaguered 
fortress : it has not yet been abandoned or formally 
surrendered, but the enemy enters unopposed, by more 



l8o KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

than one breach, and some of its main bulwarks are 
either defended no' longer or defended very feebly." 
This is altogether too fast and too sweeping when the 
only ground alleged for it is that broader views now 
prevail than those which limited " prophecy to pre- 
diction, the office of the Prophet to announcing the 
secrets of the future." The disproportionate promi- 
nence given by some early writers, and especially 
those engaged in the controversy with the Deists, to 
the apologetic use of prophecy, has been moderated 
by exalting other features of the Prophets' work in due 
measure. . But this involves no abandonment of any 
important principle. The predictive quality of proph- 
ecy is affirmed as strongly as ever. It simply falls 
into its place in the general function of the Prophets 
as teachers sent from God. This is not to endanger 
the citadel, but to fortify the approaches and to ex- 
tend and strengthen the outworks. 

With much more reason it might be retorted that 
the positions of the antagonists of a supernatural reve- 
lation have been and are in constant flux. The whole 
field over which the battle has been waged is strewn 
with their spiked guns and abandoned intrenchments. 
Hypothesis has succeeded hypothesis, only to be in 
its turn discarded. The allegation of imposture and 
of unworthy motives* once so rife, is entirely given 
up. Dr. Kuenen is at great pains to show that he 
does not impugn the Prophets' integrity in any way. 
" The charges which, more than a hundred years ago, 
were here and there brought against the Prophets of 
Israel are all silenced. In high estimation of their 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 181 

aim and their work, all are agreed." In other matters, 
too, there is the utmost discordance. While on the 
one hand some are, as Mr. Muir concedes (p. xxvii.) 
concerning Professor Reuss, " more conservative and 
apologetic " than Dr. Kuenen, and Dr. Kuenen cen- 
sures some of his party as not sufficiently thorough- 
going, he is himself, on the other hand, vehemently 
attacked by others as not sufficiently advanced in his 
positions. As to the real nature of prophecy, the 
age of the Prophets respectively, what are to be con- 
sidered their genuine productions, and in what es- 
teem they are to be held, there is no little variance in 
the critical camp. 

Professor Kuenen proposes to settle the strife be- 
tween the supernatural and the naturalistic view of 
prophecy by the single test of its fulfilment. To this 
we cheerfully assent. It is a test to which the sa- 
cred writers themselves appeal (Deut. xviii. 21, 22; 
Isai. xliii. 9-12; Jer. xxviii. 9); it is palpable, obvi- 
ous, and easily applied. If these predictions have 
been fulfilled, they are from God ; if not, they cannot 
be from him. 

He divides (p. 25) the sources of our information 
respecting the predictions in the Old Testament into 
three classes, viz. : — 

" 1st. Writings of Prophets. 

"'2d. Historical accounts regarding what the Proph- 
ets have done and spoken. 

" 3d. Words of God addressed to historical person- 
ages, and incorporated in the narratives concerning 
them." 



1 82 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

There is an undoubted propriety in giving prece- 
dence in this investigation to the prophetical books, 
in which the utterances of the Prophets are recorded 
by themselves ; since the predictions scattered through 
the historical books come to us at second-hand, and 
are, moreover, much more limited in extent. In 
conceding this, however, we yield nothing to the 
disadvantage of the trustworthiness of the latter. 
The suspicions insinuated respecting their accuracy 
are altogether groundless; they may be and are as 
reliable as any other historical statements. 

But have the books attributed to the Prophets 
really proceeded from them, and to what dates are 
they to be assigned? Here Dr. Kuenen finds it im- 
possible to make out his case without availing him- 
self of some modern critical conclusions at variance 
with the concurrent and accredited belief of ages, and 
at variance with statements contained in these books 
themselves, — conclusions which are largely based on 
an assumption of the very point at issue. A large 
part of the Book of Isaiah, every passage in which a 
knowledge of the Babylonish captivity is implied or is 
supposed to be implied, is denied to him and assigned 
to the period of the Exile ; and this notwithstanding 
the independent testimony of the author of the Book 
of Kings (n. Kings, xx, 16-18), that this captivity 
was explicitly foretold by Isaiah ; notwithstanding, 
too, the fact that it was also with like explicitness 
predicted by his contemporary Micah (iv. 10) ; and 
that the overthrow of Judah by distant and terri- 
ble foes is repeatedly declared in passages of Isaiah 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 183 

which even Dr. Kuenen confesses to be genuine, {e.g. 
v. 26-30) — as it had been in fact foreshown by Moses 
ages before (Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xxviii.) — an over- 
throw which he further affirms was not to be effected 
either by Syria (vii. 5-8) or by Assyria (x. 5-34). 
Jeremiah's prediction of Babylon's overthrow (chs. 1., 
li.) is attributed to some nameless author of a later 
time, notwithstanding the express statement of its 
special title (1. 1), affirming it to be by Jeremiah, the 
circumstantial narrative at its close (li. 59-64), and 
the additional declaration that he did predict the 
fall and utter desolation of Babylon (xxv. 12, 13). 
The genuineness of the Book of Daniel is also denied, 
and it is declared to be the product of the period of 
the Maccabees. There are besides some other de- 
rangements of the true order, of minor consequence ; 
Joel and Obadiah are put a century and a half later 
than they belong, while half of the Book of Zechariah 
is taken from him and referred to an earlier date with 
a motive which will appear hereafter. 

It would divert us too much from our present pur- 
pose to undertake here the defence of those books, or 
parts of books, which Dr. Kuenen sets aside as not 
genuine. They have been abundantly vindicated by 
able critical scholars. We simply remark, in passing, 
that the allegation that these predictions were written 
after the event is equivalent to a confession of the 
accuracy of their fulfilment which cannot otherwise be 
evaded. But the question at issue can be settled by 
prophecies whose genuineness no one has yet ven- 
tured to dispute. After all that has been done in the 



184 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

way of attempted elimination, enough remain to estab- 
lish unmistakably the divine origin of prophecy. If 
this can be first settled by what Dr. Kuenen himself 
confesses to be the genuine productions of the Proph- 
ets, he will no longer have the same motive to deny 
the genuineness of the rest, especially when it appears, 
as is in truth the case, that, even on his own critical 
hypotheses, these latter still afford evidence of divine 
prescience ; for they contain predictions reaching 
beyond the date at which he alleges that they were 
written, and which have been manifestly fulfilled. 

Dr. Kuenen groups what he calls the unfulfilled 
prophecies under three heads, as they severally re- 
late to (i)the destiny of the heathen- nations, (2) the 
judgments pronounced upon Israel, and (3) the 
expectations of the Prophets with regard to Israel's 
future. It will be convenient to follow him in this 
arrangement. 

The first instance adduced is this (p. 102): "The 
Prophets are unanimous in announcing the destruc- 
tion of the cities of the Philistines." Whereupon he 
confesses : " It is true, indeed, that scarcely any traces 
remain of the very ancient glory of the five cities. 
They have shared in the same fate that has smitten 
the whole of Palestine. They have been laid desolate 
or have gradually decayed ; after Jerusalem, indeed, 
but still like her, they too have fallen." This, how- 
ever, he refuses to accept as the proper fulfilment of 
the predictions for two reasons. First, because " the 
judgment contemplated is plainly one that would be 
executed soon. When delayed for a long period it 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 185 

ceased to be a judgment, especially in such cases as 
we find in Amos (i. 6-8) and Ezekiel (xxv. 15-17), 
where a specific sin is mentioned as the reason of 
Jahveh's displeasure." But why the divine retribution 
forfeits its character if it does not occur soon is not 
very clear. There is something striking, no doubt, 
in a penalty that follows swiftly upon the heels of 
transgression. And yet most men would concede 
equal impressiveness to a doom which is sure to come, 
however long delayed. The length of the interval 
renders it all the more certain that God does not 
forget, and that even-handed justice will not fail 
eventually to strike its mark. And, in particular, that 
the Prophets, with whom we are now concerned, did 
not judge it essential that a recompense must be 
speedy appears both from their directly declaring the 
reverse (Hab. ii. 3), and from their undisturbed confi- 
dence when this very demand was made by presump- 
tuous sinners of their own day (Isai. v. 19; Jer. xvii. 
15; Amos, v. 18). This Dr. Kuenen seems hereto 
have overlooked, though his memory is less treacher- 
ous in another place when he has an end to answer 
by it (p. 360) : " The fulfilment of their predictions 
can be to themselves, to a certain extent, matter of 
indifference ; that is to say, the fulfilment in this or 
that specific form at that specific time. It is to them 
a settled truth that Jahveh is righteous, and not less 
that at some period his righteousness shall be revealed 
in a dazzling and unmistakable manner ; but how and 
when this revelation shall take place is a question of 
subordinate importance. . . . If it is not fulfilled now, 



1 86 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

then it will be fulfilled at a later time." If now, by 
Dr. Kuenen's own confession, the element of time 
enters so little into the Prophet's expectations, by 
what right can it be demanded that the prediction 
must be fulfilled speedily, or it is no fulfilment at all 
in the sense intended by the Prophet? This is surely 
unreasonable, unless he has himself specified some 
limit within which it must occur. 

Is this done in the present instance? There is no 
pretence of it in Amos, Joel (iii. 4-8), Ezekiel, Zeph- 
aniah (ii. 4-7), or Zechariah (ix. 5-7); only Isaiah 
(xiv. 31) and Jeremiah (xlvii. 2) speak of a calam- 
ity to come upon Philistia from the north ; and 
" whenever Isaiah and Jeremiah make mention of an 
enemy out of the north, they intimate, in no doubtful 
manner, that they are thinking, the former of the 
Assyrians, the latter of the Chaldeans." Well, did 
the Assyrians and Chaldeans bring the predicted dis- 
tress upon Philistia? Assyrian monuments furnish 
abundant evidence on this .point. Sargon took Ha- 
nun, King of Gaza, prisoner and led him away into 
Assyria. 1 The King of Ashdod made his submission 
to Sennacherib, while the King of Ashkelon with his 
whole family were carried captive to Assyria, and a 
vassal placed upon the throne in his stead ; the prin- 
ces of Ekron were slain and impaled, numbers of the 
people sold as slaves, and a king created subject to 
Assyria. 2 Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal include the 
kings of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Ashdod in their 

1 Oppert, " Les Inscriptions Assyriennes des Sargonides," p. 36. 

2 Ibid., pp. 44, 45. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 187 

lists of tributary monarchs. 1 And as Nebuchadnez- 
zar subdued Phenicia and Syria, and carried his arms 
into Egypt, 2 he must have overrun the whole Philis- 
tine region. So far, therefore, from these prophecies 
remaining unaccomplished, the very fulfilment that 
Dr. Kuenen asks for did take place. The Philistines 
were chastised by both Assyria and Babylon, and the 
judgment predicted, instead of ceasing with these 
preliminary fulfilments, went on until the region was 
reduced to the desolation that it now is. 

But Dr. Kuenen's second objection is that " the 
punishment of the Philistines takes place, according 
to the Prophets, in the interest of Israel. It is 
against the people of Jahveh that they have trans- 
gressed ; it is the people of Jahveh, therefore, that 
shall reap the fruits of their destruction, take posses- 
sion of their territory, and incorporate the remnant of 
them with themselves. In other words, with the 
Prophets the lot of the Philistines forms a contrast to 
that of the Israelites. In the Prophecy of Isaiah, 
Zion, founded by Jahveh, and a safe refuge for the 
poor of his people, stands in opposition to Philistia, 
whose inhabitants perish by famine and sword. The 
same Prophet expects that the reunited tribes ' shall 
fly upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the 
west,' — that is, shall extend their dominion in that 
direction and make the Philistines subject to them." 
We might point him to the fact that the Jews under 
Jonathan Maccabaeus and Alexander Jannaeus did 

1 Schrader, " Keilinschriften und Altes Testament," pp. 229, 230. 

2 Josephus against Apion, I. 19. 



1 88 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

capture the Philistine cities, that the name Philistine 
thenceforward ceased out of history, and that the 
population of the region was subsequently absorbed 
into or supplanted by Jewish residents. But has not 
the ancient glory of Israel faded away as well as that 
of the Philistines? Instead of the contrast which 
prophecy leads us to anticipate, have they not alike 
fallen into decline and ruin? The answer to this 
question obviously involves the correctness of the 
prophetic expectations regarding Israel, and, to avoid 
needless repetition, must be reserved until the proph- 
ecies respecting Israel come regularly before us in 
the course of our inquiry. Meanwhile let it be noted 
here that all that the Prophets have said concerning 
the Philistines has been in the fullest and strictest 
sense accomplished. The only point which, for the 
reason stated, we leave unsettled at this stage of the 
discussion is, Do the fortunes of Israel stand in the 
required contrast to those of Philistia? 

The next prophecies adduced are those against Tyre 
by Isaiah (xxiii.) and Ezekiel (xxvi-xxviii.). Of 
the latter Dr. Kuenen says (p. 107) : "What he pre- 
dicts for Tyre is nothing less than entire destruction. 
The many nations that march against her to battle 
1 shall destroy her walls and break down her towers.' 
Jahveh 'shall sweep away her dust — the layer of 
earth on which her houses and gardens were placed 
— and make her a bare rock.' Thus she shall be- 
come ' a place where men spread nets in the midst of 
the sea.' The multitude of nations that execute this 
judgment are led by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 1 89 

kings. He shall lay siege to the city, and finally 
1 shall enter in through her gates as men enter into a 
conquered town.' Then plundering and devastation 
follow until Tyre has ceased to exist." 

Now, Dr. Kuenen confesses that " Tyre capitu- 
lated " to Nebuchadnezzar at the end of his long 
siege of thirteen years, and " wholly or partially lost 
her independence." And that this was really the 
case is abundantly demonstrated in Movers' elaborate 
investigation of this point, 1 an author whom none can 
suspect of being biassed in his conclusions by a re- 
gard for the authority of the Prophet. He further 
admits, what is too palpable to be denied, that Tyre 
is at present "an insignificant fishing village." Every 
trait in the prophetic description has long since been 
matched by the event. But he complains that this 
desolation was not effected all at once ; the fulfilment 
of the prophecy was not exhausted by the victory of 
Nebuchadnezzar. The city was not laid waste by 
him, nor its trade destroyed. It continued to be a 
powerful and wealthy merchant city even under the 
Persian dominion. All that the prophecy declares 
has come to pass. The correspondence between the 
word Of the Prophet and the condition to which this 
mistress of the seas has been reduced is signal and 
undeniable. But this was not brought about by 
Nebuchadnezzar alone. It was not the issue of his 
single siege. It was not accomplished in one age, 
nor by the operation of any one cause. The city was 
weakened and humbled by Nebuchadnezzar. It was 

1 " Das Phcenizische Alterthum," i. 427-450. 



I90 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

still further humiliated by Alexander the Great. 
Other wars and struggles followed. Other causes 
conspired to dry up the sources of its prosperity. 
And because the desolation described by the Prophet 
was only fully reached after a long interval, and was 
the result of many combined influences, it is most 
strangely argued that this must not be regarded as 
the fulfilment of Ezekiel's prediction. One would 
think that the greater the lapse of time and the more 
complicated the causes at work, the more decisive 
and complete would be the evidence of a far-reach- 
ing foresight, and that it was no merely human cal- 
culation from limited and imperfect data. . The proof 
of prophetic power is surely not diminished or de- 
stroyed because that is foretold which only He could 
know who sees the end from the beginning, and to 
whom, a thousand years are as one day. 

But, says Dr. Kuenen, " is it not clear as day that 
it [the prophecy of Ezekiel] announces the over- 
throw of the Phenicians as being close at hand?" 
The Prophet says no such thing. On the contrary, 
it is " clear as day " that such a limitation of the 
prophecy to what was " close at hand " is wholly gra- 
tuitous, and is a covert assumption of the very- ques- 
tion at issue. If the announcement made by Ezekiel 
were only a shrewd conjecture from the existing po- 
litical situation, the prophetic horizon would have to 
be narrowed accordingly, and nothing that was re- 
mote, or that was dependent upon causes not yet 
apparent, could be admitted to fall within its scope. 
And after the prophecy has thus been degraded to a 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 191 

merely human anticipation, it is comparatively easy 
to show that it has failed. Eliminate or refuse to 
recognize the stamp of its divinity, and its non-fulfil- 
ment naturally follows ; for that is tacitly involved in 
the primary assumption. Only it is strange, on Dr. 
Kuenen's view of the case, if the prophecy in its true 
intent, as understood by Ezekiel and his hearers, was 
restricted to events " close at hand," that they could 
themselves have retained any confidence in it as a 
message from God ; for it was falsified before it was 
even put on record. The siege of Tyre came to an 
end years before the Book of Ezekiel was issued, and 
Tyre still survived. Now, if no exactness of corres- 
pondence in the future between the event and the 
terms of the prediction could be a fulfilment of the 
latter in the sense put upon it by the Prophet and his 
contemporaries, how does it come to pass that it was 
not utterly discredited in their esteem and refused a 
place in this collection professing to be uttered under 
the immediate inspiration of God? 

Dr. Kuenen himself, when he would convert proph- 
ecy into a vague presentiment, or a pious deduction 
from the moral government of God, admits that the 
time when Jehovah's righteousness should be revealed 
is, to the Prophets, "a question of subordinate impor- 
tance " (p. 360). They were convinced that the 
haughty oppressors of His people would some time 
be laid low by His avenging arm, but it was not in- 
dispensable that this should be done immediately. 
"When their anticipations were not realized, they 
will have easily satisfied themselves with the thought 



192 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

that the fulfilment would doubtless occur at a later 
period. In truth it makes a very essential difference 
whether any event is estimated in and on account of 
itself or as the form in which something else is re- 
vealed. In the first case its non-realization is a bitter 
disappointment, and for him who announced it a 
painful humiliation ; but this bitterness and this pain 
are not felt when recourse is at once had to the con- 
viction : if it is not fulfilled now, then it will be ful- 
filled at a later time; the righteousness of Jahveh 
endures and must positively some time come to 
light." 1 Dr. Kuenen fancies that Ezekiel himself 
expected Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish ah that he 
uttered in his prediction respecting Tyre. This is 
nowhere stated in the prediction itself. It is merely 
Dr. Kuenen's opinion. But suppose him to be cor- 
rect; what then? We do not claim omniscience for 
the Prophet, but simply inspiration and unerring 
truth for his prediction. And even on the low view 
of prophecy entertained by Dr. Kuenen, the essential 
thing in the Prophet's mind was the vindication of 
God's righteous judgment ; the time when this should 
take place was of little consequence. The fact, not 
the period of its manifestation, was what he regarded 
as absolutely certain. Whenever this manifestation 
should occur, it would be to him the fulfilment of his 
prediction. How can Dr. Kuenen, therefore, on his 
own principles, justify his assertion that the event 
must be " close at hand " in order to verify the 

1 The italics in the various quotations from Dr. Kuenen are invari- 
ably his own. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 193 

Prophet's anticipation? Much less can it be neces- 
sary to the accomplishment of that which is a direct 
revelation from the omniscient God himself. In fact, 
it looks somewhat like grasping both horns of a di- 
lemma at once, when Dr. Kuenen, in his zeal to fasten 
human infirmity on the prophecies, affirms with one 
breath that a particular event " close at hand " must 
have been intended by them, so that nothing else can 
be a fulfilment of them, and with the next declares 
that the manifestation of Jehovah's righteousness is 
the one fixed conviction of the Prophets, irrespective 
of either time or mode. 

But, says Dr. Kuenen, " Ezekiel himself declares 
that his expectations concerning the fate of Tyre were 
not realized" (Ezek. xxix. 18-20). "Son of man, 
Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon caused his army to 
serve a great service against Tyre : every head was 
made bald, and every shoulder was peeled : yet had 
he no wages, nor his army, for Tyre, for the service 
that he had served against it ; " whereupon the land 
of Egypt is promised him for his wages. Dr. Kuenen 
very naturally apprehends that this proof will be sus- 
pected of being so very strong as to be worth noth- 
ing (p. no): "Plow by any possibility can Ezekiel 
come forward as a witness against the realization of 
his own prophecy?" The fact is that the sense put 
upon this passage is an utter perversion of its mean- 
ing. Nebuchadnezzar must have performed the work 
against Tyre which the Lord had assigned to him, 
or he would not have earned the wages which are 
here promised him and declared to be rightfully his. 

*3 



194 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

The Prophet revokes nothing of his former predic- 
tion. He confesses to no failure or disappointed ex- 
pectations. He makes no attempt to accommodate 
the expressions which he had previously used to an 
event which had turned out differently from his antic- 
ipations. He simply says, Nebuchadnezzar has done 
his work, which was an exceedingly toilsome one, 
and has thereby earned larger wages than the spoils 
of Tyre afforded him ; he shall have Egypt in addi- 
tion to make up full payment. There is nothing 
surely in this that looks as though Ezekiel regarded 
his prophecy against Tyre as having failed in so far 
as respects the work committed to Nebuchadnezzar, 
but the very reverse. 

Nevertheless, says Dr. Kuenen, " this much is plain, 
that Nebuchadnezzar did not enter in through the 
gates of Tyre as men enter into a conquered city " 
(Ezek. xxvi. 10). How does he know? And "as 
little did his troops carry away the wealth of Tyre 
and plunder her merchandise" (ver. 12). Tyre was 
open seaward during the entire siege. The wealthiest 
citizens may have fled to distant colonies and taken 
their goods with them (Isai. xxiii. 6, 7, 12). The 
treasures of their sanctuaries may likewise have been 
temporarily removed for safe-keeping. And the 
terms of the capitulation, of which we know nothing, 
may have limited the amount that the conqueror 
should receive. It is very easy to understand how he 
could have " made a spoil of its riches," and yet not 
be adequately paid for his long and toilsome service. 

In regard to Isaiah's prediction against Tyre (xxiii.), 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 



195 



Dr. Kuenen complains that its fulfilment is sometimes 
sought in the siege of that city by Shalmaneser, King 
of Assyria, and sometimes in that by Nebuchadnezzar ; 
and he insists that a choice must be made between 
them. But what is there to hinder its embracine 
both? It is a declaration of God's work of judgment 
upon Tyre, to be executed partly by one instrument 
and partly by another, which in the actual unfoldings 
of history met its partial accomplishment in different 
periods successively, but is here gathered up into a 
single picture of its future destiny. 

To the general prediction of its overthrow, the 
Prophet adds the specific statement (vers. 15-18) that 
Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, after which her 
trade shall revive, and her gains, instead of being 
treasured up for her own advantage, shall be holiness 
to the Lord. Dr. Kuenen remarks that " facts like 
those announced here cannot pass away without leav- 
ing some traces." And they have not done so, even 
though he professes that he has not been able to find 
them. The term of her humiliation is at once ex- 
plained by the declaration of Jeremiah (xxv. 11), that 
the land of Judah and all contiguous nations, among 
whom (ver. 22) Tyre is expressly included, should 
serve the King of Babylon seventy years. This is 
precisely the interval between the decisive victory 
gained by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish over Pha- 
raoh-necho King of Egypt (Jer. xlvi. 2), which opened 
his way to Jerusalem and the neighboring kingdoms 
that had combined against him, and the conquest of 
Babylon by Cyrus. That Tyre continued after its 



196 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

siege by Nebuchadnezzar to be subject to Babylon, 
till the latter city itself was overthrown by Cyrus, is ap- 
parent from an extract which Josephus 1 has fortunately 
preserved for us from Tyre's own annals. This in- 
forms us that Hiram, who was reigning in Tyre when 
Cyrus became king of Persia, as well as his brother 
and predecessor, had been brought from Babylon to 
be placed upon the throne. 

But what shall be said of the predicted conversion 
of this heathen city, with its wealth, to the service of 
the LORD? There has been an incipient fulfilment 
of this which should not be overlooked. Tyre had its 
Christian disciples in the days of the apostles (Acts, 
xxi. 3-6), and subsequently a flourishing church. It 
was the seat of a bishop ; its cathedral was the most 
elegant structure in Phenicia ; synods were held there. 
It had a Christian population down to the time of the 
Crusades, when it was erected into a Latin arch- 
bishopric under the patriarch of Jerusalem. One of 
the most noticeable among the ruins of ancient Tyre 
is that of a Christian church, which was originally a 
large and splendid structure. This, however, is but 
the budding of a fulfilment, and by no means all that 
the prophecy leads us to expect. The consideration 
of what further is involved in it can best be postponed 
to a subsequent part of this inquiry, when it shall be 
taken up again, together with the claim made by Dr. 
Kuenen (p. no) that the punishment of Tyre, as of 

1 Against Apion, book i. § 21. A hint of Tyre's reduced condition 
at the close of the Exile may be found in the fact that Zidon is men- 
tioned before it (Ezra iii. 7) instead of after it, which is the usual 
order. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL, 1 97 

the other neighbors of Israel, should precede the 
return of Israel to their native land on the ground of 
Ezek. xxviii. 24-26. We can only appreciate this 
correctly when the prophecies respecting Israel shall 
come before us. 

The next prediction introduced is that of Jeremiah 
(xlix. 23-27) against Damascus, where the whole 
ground of cavil is based upon an ambiguous word in 
the English version, of which advantage is taken to 
put a sense upon it which the original will not at all 
admit. " How is the city of praise not left ! " is thus 
paraphrased, " Why might not Damascus have re- 
mained? " and this affirmed to imply " its permanent 
desolation ; " whereas the first glance at the Hebrew 
is sufficient to show that "left" in this place means 
not permitted to remain, but forsaken, and there is 
no intimation whatever that it should not survive or 
recover from the threatened blow. In the scanty ac- 
counts that we possess of this entire period, it is not 
surprising that the event referred to has passed with- 
out mention. Josephus (Ant. x. II, 1) speaks of 
captive Syrians taken to Babylon at the outset of 
Nebuchadnezzar's reign ; and the subsequent course 
of events makes it more than probable that this was 
again repeated. 

Of Ammon and Moab it is predicted, as Dr. 
Kuenen states, that " the two nations shall both be 
driven away or extirpated, and their cities shall be 
laid waste." And he adds, " this fate has in fact 
overtaken them." But he objects (p. 114) that " they 
were still inhabited and flourishing up to the seventh 



198 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

century of the Christian era ; " whereas " the Prophets 
do not expect (Isai. xi. 14, xxv. 10; Zeph. ii. 9, 10) 
that Moab and Ammon shall in the course of ages 
lose their national existence along with or even after 
Israel, but that Israel shall be a witness of the destruc- 
tion of their enemies ; and shall reap the fruits of that 
destruction? " The prophecy that Israel shall appear 
as the inheritor of Moab and Ammon of itself abso- 
lutely forbids us to see the realization of what 
Zephaniah expected, in the ruin of those nations six 
centuries after the second destruction of Jerusalem." 
But the punishment was not altogether postponed to 
this late period. The entire region was subdued and 
ravaged by Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus (Ant. x. 
9, 7) specially mentions the subjugation of Ccelesyria, 
Ammon, and Moab. That he purposed specially to 
attack the Ammonites we learn from Ezek. xxi. 20 ; 
and he had reasons for so doing, both in the combi- 
nation into which they had entered against Chaldea 
(Jer. xxvii. 3), and in their harboring and perhaps in- 
stigating Ishmael the murderer of Gedaliah, whom 
the King of Babylon had made governor after the 
capture of Jerusalem (Jer. xl. 14, xli. 2,-15). 

The relation of these lands to Israel when restored 
will be postponed until that subject is considered in 
connection with other nations. 

For proof of the fulfilment of the predictions re- 
specting the Edomites we need not go beyond that 
furnished in Dr. Kuenen's own pages, and which he 
vainly endeavors to set aside. In the time of Malachi, 
as i. 3, 4 expressly states, Esau's mountains and his 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 199 

heritage were lying waste. If this was effected, as 
there is every reason to believe, by Nebuchadnezzar 
in the expedition x five years after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, in which he subjected the Ammonites and 
Moabites and advanced into Egypt, then here we 
have the evidence that " nearly a century after the end 
of the captivity," when the Jews were restored and 
Jerusalem was rebuilt, Edom was still a desolation, 
and the prospect of recovery was as remote as ever. 
This certainly is not the " very opposite " of the rep- 
resentation in Joel iii. 19, 20, but precisely coincident 
with it. Obad. ver. 18 and Ezek. xxv. 14 found ac- 
complishment in the spoliation of the Edomites by 
Judas Maccabaeus, then by John Hyrcanus, " who 
completely subdued them about B.C. 130, compelled 
them to adopt the rite of circumcision, and incorpo- 
rated them into the Jewish State ; " then " by Simon, 
son of Gioras, the head of one of the factions. The 
nation of the Edomites is mentioned no more after 
the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) : it was partly 
incorporated with the Jewish nation, partly blended 
with other Arabian tribes. Meanwhile their former 
capital, Sela, and a great part of their ancient terri- 
tory had already, many centuries before, passed into 
other hands." It is now reduced to utter desolation. 
Its interval of wealth and flourishing trade, during 
which it is better known to us by its Greek name 
Petra, and when it was occupied by others than 

1 Josephus, Ant. x. 9, 7. This is not at variance with Ezek. xxxv., 
or xxxvi. 5, which were first uttered after the fall of Jerusalem (xxxiii. 
21), nor with Isai. xxxiv., which was not written in the Exile, but long 
before it. 



200 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

Edomites, does not prevent this region, first wrenched 
from the children of Esau, then wasted as at the 
present day, from bearing its striking testimony to 
the truth of the prophecies. 

Ezekiel's prediction of the forty years' desolation 
of Egypt (xxix. 11-16) has long proved perplexing 
to interpreters, and is, we frankly admit, somewhat 
difficult to reconcile with Herodotus's statement (ii. 
177) that the reign of Amasis, a considerable portion 
of which falls within this predicted term, " was the 
most prosperous time that Egypt ever saw." This is 
no new embarrassment raised by Dr. Kuenen, how- 
ever ; the whole matter had been thoroughly sifted, 
and everything possible to be said had been said 
about it, before he was born, and that without shak- 
ing the confidence of those veteran scholars in the 
divinity of the Prophet's word. In spite of Dr. 
Kuenen's confidence that the result which he has 
obtained " defies all reasonable contradiction and will 
in the end be generally received," we think it can be 
made to appear that he is over-hasty in his conclu- 
sions. From the time of the decisive battle of Car- 
chemish, at all events, as Dr. Kuenen correctly states, 
Jeremiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would invade 
Egypt and subdue that country (Jer. xlvi. 13-28). 
This he still continued to affirm years afterwards, 
when Jerusalem had been destroyed, and Gedaliah 
murdered, and the wretched remnant of Jews fled, 
contrary to the Prophet's earnest remonstrance, to 
Egypt for protection (Jer. xliii. 8-13, xliv. 12-14); 
and the death of King Pharaoh-hophra, by the hands 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 201 

of his enemies, is made the sign of its fulfilment (xliv. 
29, 30). Ezekiel repeats, with still more particularity, 
that Nebuchadnezzar shall invade the land of Egypt, 
and that it shall be desolated for forty years, and the 
Egyptians shall be scattered among the nations ; but 
at the end of forty years they shall be regathered into 
their own land, though Egypt shall thenceforth be a 
base kingdom, and no more exalt itself above the 
nations nor be any more the confidence of the House 
of Israel. 

Now, of all this Herodotus gives no account. He 
makes no mention of the -subjugation of Egypt by 
Nebuchadnezzar. But it is to be borne in mind that 
Herodotus received his information from Egyptian 
priests, and they did not scruple, as he himself de- 
clares his belief more than once (iii. 2, 16), to falsify 
the truth of history in their own interest. Herodotus 
nowhere mentions Pharaoh-necho's defeat by Nebu- 
chadnezzar at Carchemish, which put an end to Egyp- 
tian rule in Asia, and this though he speaks of that 
very expedition of Necho and his victory over Josiah 
at Megiddo. He nowhere speaks of Nebuchadnezzar 
at all, or of his coming into armed collision with 
Egypt. And yet the silence of Herodotus does not, 
even with Dr. Kuenen himself, discredit the battle of 
Carchemish, or call in question its decisive character. 
Still further, Herodotus never alludes to the conquest 
of Egypt by any king of Assyria ; and the assertion 
of the capture of Thebes made by Nahum (iii. 8-10) 
was discredited by Dr. Kuenen and other similar crit- 
ics, on the ground that no ancient historian mentions 



202 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

it, and the monuments existing in unbroken continuity 
make no allusion to it and leave no room for it. But 
an inscription of Assurbanipal was found in which he 
relates the fact, and the critics were obliged to retract 
The records of the Assyrians are similarly oblivious of 
defeats suffered by themselves. Sennacherib records 
in full his annual successes, but makes no allusion 
to his disastrous overthrow, of which we know both 
from the sacred historians and from Herodotus, the 
Egyptian priests having no motive for silence in 
this instance. 

The silence of Egyptian informants is, therefore, 
not conclusive of the non-concurrence of. what was 
disastrous to Egypt or mortifying to its pride. Now, 
if Dr. KuenCn will but distinguish between what the 
Prophets actually say, and what he imputes to them as 
their meaning but which they do not say, we do not 
despair of convincing even himself that what the Jew- 
ish-Prophets predict respecting Egypt is entirely con- 
sistent with what Herodotus relates of the correspond- 
ing period. 

" Hophra," he says (p. 124), with a flourish of italics, 
as though the Prophet were contradicted point-blank 
by the testimony of the historian, " did not fall in the 
war against Nebuchadnezzar." Well, no Prophet said 
that he would. Jeremiah says (xliv. 30), speaking 
from the mouth of God : " Behold, I will give Pharaoh- 
hophra, King of Egypt, into the hand of his enemies, 
and into the hand of them that seek his life." Again 
(xlvi. 26), " I will deliver them," i. e., Pharaoh and all 
them that trust in him, " into the hand of those that 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 203 

seek their lives, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, 
King of Babylon, and into the hand of his servants." 
Now, what is the testimony of Herodotus? It is thus 
summed up in Dr. Kuenen's own words: "An insur- 
rection broke out. Amasis, who was commissioned 
by the king to suppress it, placed himself at the head 
of the insurgents, defeated the mercenary forces, took 
Apries (Hophra) prisoner, and after some hesitation 
consented to his death." Is not the language of Jere- 
miah fulfilled to the letter? Pharaoh-hophra was 
delivered into the hand of them that sought his life. 

But in his zeal to bring forth a contradiction where 
there is entire harmony, Dr. Kuenen holds the fol- 
lowing most extraordinary language : " The narrative 
of Herodotus leaves no room for a temporary sub- 
jection of the Egyptians to the Chaldeans, or even 
for a successful invasion of their country by Nebu- 
chadnezzar. How could Hophra have been able to 
undertake an expedition against Cyrene in 569 B. c. 
if in or after 570 B. c. he had been defeated by Neb- 
uchadnezzar? For in this year, the twenty-seventh 
of Ezekiel's captivity, the conquest of Egypt by the 
Chaldeans had not yet, according to this Prophet 
himself (xxix. 17-21), taken place. Is it not ab- 
surd to suppose that it happened immediately there- 
after, still in 570 B. C, and in the following year 
had been already forgotten." It is astonishing that 
Dr. Kuenen can either content himself or expect to 
blind his readers by so transparent a trick as this. 
He has made an absurd supposition, which no one 
dreams of entertaining, as though it were involved in 



204 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

the truth of the Prophet's prediction, but he has alto- 
gether evaded the simple and obvious explanation of 
the case which offers itself at once upon his own 
statement of the facts. 

If Nebuchadnezzar had not yet invaded Egypt 570 
B. C, and Hophra was involved in civil war 569 B. C, 
what more natural, or more in accordance with the 
usual policy of ambitious monarchs, than that these 
domestic disturbances had either been fomented for 
the purpose or were seized upon as the occasion of 
foreign interference? Thus Sir Gardner Wilkinson : 1 
" We can readily imagine that the Assyrians, having 
extended their conquests to the extremity of Pales- 
tine, would,- on the rumor of intestine commotions in 
Egypt, hasten to take advantage of the opportunity 
thus afforded them of attacking the country. . . . 
From a comparison of all these authorities, I con- 
clude that the civil war between Apries and Amasis 
did not terminate in the single conflict at Momem- 
phis, but lasted several years .; and that either Amasis 
solicited the aid and intervention of Nebuchadnezzar, 
or this prince, availing himself of the disordered 
state of the country, of his own accord invaded it, 
deposed the rightful sovereign and placed Amasis on 
the throne, on condition of paying tribute to the 
Assyrians. The injury done to the land and cities 
of Egypt by this invasion, and the disgrace with 
which the Egyptians felt themselves overwhelmed 

1 " Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," vol. ii. pp. 177— 
179. See also notes to Rawlinson's Herodotus, ii. 177, and ch. viii. 
of Appendix to Book ii. pp. 322 ff. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 205 

after such an event, would justify the account given 
in the Bible of the fall of Egypt ; and to witness many 
of their compatriots taken captive to Babylon, and to 
become tributary to an enemy whom they held in ab- 
horrence, would be considered by the Egyptians the 
greatest calamity, as though they had forever lost 
their station in the scale of nations. And this last 
would satisfactorily account for the title of Melek, 
given to inferior or to tributary kings, being applied 
to Amasis in some of the hieroglyphic legends ac- 
companying his name." 

If this view of Wilkinson and others, is correct, — 
and it is difficult to see what well-founded objection 
can be made to it, — then it is perfectly easy to rec- 
oncile the statement of Herodotus that Pharaoh- 
hophra was put to death by the Egyptians, to whom 
he was delivered over by Amasis, and that of Jose- 
phus that he was slain by Nebuchadnezzar. The 
Egyptians were the immediate actors, but it was at 
the instance of the King of Babylon. 

Dr. Kuenen's attempt to discredit the authority of 
Josephus, who here expressly vouches for the fulfil- 
ment of the Prophet's predictions, will scarcely gain 
the approval of any who do not agree with him in 
his foregone conclusion. Josephus * expressly ap- 
peals to the authority of Berosus for the affirmation 
that Nebuchadnezzar " conquered Egypt and Syria 
and Phoenicia and Arabia, and exceeded in his ex- 
ploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and 
Chaldea." The charge that Berosus is " altogether 

1 " Against Apion," i. 19. 



206 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

unhistorical " in speaking of Egypt as subject to the 
Chaldean empire prior to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, 
sounds strangely since the discovery of Assurbani- 
pal's conquest of Egypt, which, on the fall and parti- 
tion of the Assyrian empire, would come under the 
dominion of Babylon, or at least be claimed by it. 
And how could Nebuchadnezzar have exceeded all 
other monarchs of the great Asiatic empire in his 
exploits if he failed in his attempt upon Egypt, which 
others had subdued? The language of Megasthenes, 
that Nebuchadnezzar " subdued the greater part of 
Libya and Iberia," is doubtless air exaggeration ; but 
upon what could such an exaggeration have been 
built if he never even penetrated into Africa? 

The allegation that Josephus infers his facts from 
the predictions is utterly groundless and gratuitous. 
That he mentions * the predictions respecting the 
King of Babylon's conquest of Egypt, and adds 
" which things came to pass," implies, on the con- 
trary, that he discriminates between the prophecy 
and its fulfilment, and had independent information 
of the latter. That he borrows freely from the his- 
torical statements of Jeremiah is no ground for the 
unworthy sneer that he has been " caught in the very 
act " of narrating as fact that for which he had no 
historical voucher. The circumstance to which Dr. 
Kuenen appeals (p. 128), that Josephus does not re- 
cord " the forty years desolation of Egypt, and the 
subsequent partial restoration which Ezekiel men- 
tions," shows that he does not simply and without 

1 " Antiquities of the Jews," x. 9, 7. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 207 

warrant convert prophecy into history, as is charged 
upon him. The attempt to involve Josephus in chro- 
nological conflict both with himself and with the 
Prophet Ezekiel is based upon the following passage 
from the section just now quoted : " On the fifth year 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the 
twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he 
made an expedition against Ccele-Syria, and when 
he had possessed himself of it, he made war against 
the Ammonites and Moabites ; and when he had 
brought all those nations under subjection he fell 
upon Egypt in order to overthrow it, and he slew the 
king that then reigned and set up another, and he 
took those Jews that were there captives and led them 
away to Babylon." Upon this Dr. Kuenen comments 
as follows : " That the Chaldeans conquered Egypt 
in the year 581 B.C. is irreconcilable with the testi- 
mony of Ezekiel, from which it is evident that the 
conquest had not yet taken place in the year 570 B. C, 
and with the account of Josephus himself, that Nebu- 
chadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years — prob- 
ably from 585 to 572 B. c. : the invasion of Egypt 
cannot surely be regarded as an episode of that 
siege ! " This is merely the cavil of one who is de- 
termined to create difficulties at all hazards : it has 
no other foundation than the assumption, without 
one word in Josephus to justify it, that all the 
events grouped together in the paragraph above 
quoted occurred in one and the same year. 

And now, after all the ado made about these proph- 
ecies respecting Egypt, and the confident assertion 



208 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

that nothing but' " dogmatical reasons " can lead any 
to continue to defend them, the case stands thus: 
The silence of Herodotus respecting a conquest of 
Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar is no just reason for ques- 
tioning the reality of its occurrence. The facts that 
he does state coincide perfectly with the assumption 
of such a conquest, and are moreover in entire har- 
mony with the statements of Josephus, who positively 
avers it, and the correctness of whose narrative there 
is no sufficient reason for impugning; while it is both 
intrinsically probable and has the explicit warrant of 
Berosus, a native Babylonish historian. In fact, the 
entire history of the period and the whole life of 
Nebuchadnezzar are unintelligible without the inva- 
sion of Egypt, which was the natural sequence of the 
victory at Carchemish, and of the struggle for pre- 
dominance in Western Asia between the great em- 
pires of the east and south (see II. Chron. xxxv. 21). 
Nebuchadnezzar, too, had steadily followed up his 
victory by the siege of Jerusalem, by over-running 
the contiguous lands, Moab, Ammon, and the rest, 
and by the reduction of Tyre, which finally opened 
the way for this long-contemplated campaign. That 
this was the well-understood policy of the Babylonish 
monarch from the beginning is shadowed forth by 
constantly repeated predictions to this effect from 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as Dr. Kuenen must confess ; 
for even upon his low views of prophecy they reveal 
the popular expectation and the convictions of shrewd 
thinkers and the drift of events. Vitringa suggests, 
not improbably, that it was the current expectation 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 209 

of an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar that gave 
rise to the oracle reported by Herodotus (ii. 58), that 
Necho, in building the canal to the Red Sea, was 
" laboring for the barbarian." And the fact that 
Nebuchadnezzar was occupied during the later years 
of his life with his magnificent buildings and adorning 
Babylon, implies the success of his invasion, and that 
he had reached the summit of his ambition and ter- 
minated the long strife between the empires. 

But what, it may still be said, is to be thought of 
Ezekiel's prediction of the forty years' desolation of 
Egypt? These forty years are plainly the residue 
of the seventy years' domination of Babylon foretold 
by Jeremiah (xxv. 11, 12), beginning with the battle 
of Carchemish, which broke the power of Egypt and 
established the empire of Babylon in the west, and 
ending with the capture of Babylon and subver- 
sion of the Chaldean empire by Cyrus. A trifle more 
than thirty of these predestined years had elapsed 
when Nebuchadnezzar ended his siege of Tyre, and 
now, the last obstacle removed, was prepared to strike 
the final blow which he had meditated from the out- 
set, by pushing his conquests into the very heart of 
Egypt. Thus began that period of desolating war 
and humiliating subjection to a foreign yoke which 
was terminated only by Babylon's own fall, in round 
numbers forty years, historically reckoned perhaps 
thirty-six or thirty-seven years; though, if absolute 
precision to the very letter be demanded in the ful- 
filment, while in the absence of full historical data 
of the period it cannot be rigorously demonstrated, 

14 



2IO KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

there will be little difficulty in assuming it. The be- 
ginning and the end of such a period of calamity 
cannot be sharply defined. Egypt was harassed by 
internal dissensions, and doubtless by incursions from 
the troops of Nebuchadnezzar before his invasion was 
made in force. And the power of Babylon in the 
remoter parts of the empire was not instantly dissi- 
pated upon the capture of the city. 

The surprisingly strong language of the Prophet 
(xxix. 10, n), " I will make the land of Egypt ut- 
terly waste and desolate : ... no foot of man shall 
pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through 
it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years," admits of 
a twofold vindication. I. These universal and sweep- 
ing expressions are necessarily limited by the nature 
of the case. It is a strong description of the desola- 
tion which would follow in the track of war, the con- 
sternation, pillage, massacre, which would so change 
the face of the peaceful and populous empire that it 
might be said to convert it into a desert. It is the 
natural language of hyperbole, which every one un- 
derstands, and in which it would be contrary to sound 
interpretation and be a perversion of the real mean- 
ing of the writer to insist on the exact literality of 
the expressions ; as much so as when the evangelist 
says (John xxi. 25) that if all the acts of Christ were 
to be written, the world itself could not contain the 
books. Compare Luke xix. 40. It might as well 
be insisted that the language of every metaphor is 
to be pressed in its most literal sense. This is not 
interpretation, but perversion. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 2 1 1 

2. Again, it is to be borne in mind that prophecy 
does not always exhaust itself in a single fulfilment. 
This is the case here. The Prophet Ezekiel, while 
speaking more immediately and directly of the judg- 
ment to be inflicted on Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, 
nevertheless has as his more general theme God's 
whole work of judgment upon Egypt, by which its 
hitherto colossal power and greatness were to be 
broken, and it should cease to be the object of idol- 
atrous trust to Israel (xxix. 16) that it then was 
and had long been. The first and preliminary stage 
in this process of degradation and humiliation was to 
be effected by Nebuchadnezzar : this was the initial 
yet decisive blow which presaged and involved all 
the rest. In describing it, consequently, the Prophet 
does not view it as an isolated act and apart from its 
connections, but places it in combination with all 
that properly appertains to it in the design of God, 
links it with its whole train of predestined sequences, 
and virtually gathers into one picture what God, in 
bringing this to pass, designed to effect. The pur- 
pose of God which sent Nebuchadnezzar into Egypt 
was not limited to that one act, but contemplated the 
reduction and humiliation of Egypt. This invasion 
was but the first step of a more comprehensive plan, 
the initiative and pledge of more to follow, an integral 
part of an indivisible whole as viewed in the divine 
mind and as here regarded by the Prophet. Nebu- 
chadnezzar's invasion of Egypt, as the first member 
of a closely concatenated series, carried with it in the 
purpose of God all that was to come after, all that 



212 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

Egypt was thenceforward to suffer from subsequent 
invasions and oppressions by Persians, Macedonians, 
Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and Turks. And the 
strength of the Prophet's expressions are graduated 
accordingly. While primarily spoken of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, they have a residuary meaning, that covers all 
that has since been developed from them. In like 
manner our Lord, in His memorable prophecy (Matt, 
xxiv.), in which He blends together the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the end of the world as constituent 
parts of one grand drama of divine judgment on 
transgression, adds, " Verily this generation shall not 
pass till all these things be fulfilled," The first sta- 
dium of accomplishment, the foretaste and assurance 
of the whole, was then to be completed in the de- 
struction of the Jewish capital, though there is a resid- 
uary meaning in His words which shall not be fully 
exhausted until the final judgment. 

Dr. Kuenen does not disguise the contempt with 
which he regards this mode of interpreting prophecy, 
as though it were arbitrary in the extreme. We shall 
not at this point of the discussion enter upon its de- 
fence and confirmation. If prophecy is, as it claims 
to be, a divine product, there is no reason why it 
should not thus take its shape from the divine pur- 
poses. Whether it. does so in actual fact we shall in- 
quire more particularly hereafter. We only remark at 
present that such a mode of interpretation, if feasible 
and proper, would satisfactorily explain the Prophet's 
language, and justify us in peremptorily and in the 
most decided terms reversing our author's confident 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 213 

conclusion (p. 128), " that the future of Egypt was 
concealed from Ezekiel, and that the reality did not 
even remotely correspond to his postulates." 

Isaiah's prediction (xx. 4), "that the King of As- 
syria shall carry the inhabitants of Egypt and Ethiopia 
away ignominiously out of their land," was fulfilled to 
the letter, as is shown both by Nahum (iii. 8-10), and 
by an inscription of Assurbanipal, — testimonieswhich 
are adduced by Dr. Kuenen himself (p. 121), and 
which he vainly seeks to set aside by the quibble that 
Isaiah " expects " this to be done by Sargon, whereas 
it was effected by his great-grandson. The sufficient 
reply to which is, that the meaning of the prophecy 
is to be determined not by what Dr. Kuenen con- 
ceives to be the " most obvious supposition" of what 
Isaiah " expects," but by its own explicit declarations. 
It was an expedition of Sargon which gave occasion 
to the prophecy; the triumph over Egypt, however, 
is ascribed not to Sargon, but to "the King of As- 
syria." The assault made by Sargon was followed up 
by his successors until the words of the Prophet were 
amply verified. 

It is no prejudice to the inspiration of Isaiah or of 
Micah if " the overthrow of the Assyrian empire is 
not predicted " by them. Such a prediction could 
not be expected from Micah, for his prophecy is lim- 
ited exclusively to the fortunes of the people of God. 
Isaiah, on the other hand, does foretell Assyria's down- 
fall, with prominent reference indeed to Sennacherib's 
disastrous defeat (x. 24-34, xvii. 12-14, xxx. 31 ff., 
xxxi. 8, 9), but in terms which may easily be under- 



214 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

stood as reaching much farther and implying a more 
complete destruction. But at any rate the Prophet is 
not omniscient. He has no predictive faculty by 
which he can survey the future at will. He knows 
barely what is revealed to him ; of all else he is as 
ignorant as ordinary men. The fact that Isaiah de- 
picts in the blissful future " a highway out of Egypt to 
Assyria " (xix. 23), and that Micah (v. 5, 6) describes 
the coming Redeemer as Isaiah's protector against 
Assyrian invasion, may or may not warrant Dr. 
Kuenen's inference that for aught they knew the As- 
syrian empire would last until Messiah's days. But 
in either case the language is as consistent with strict 
truth as in any of those numerous instances in which 
the Prophets set forth the future under figures bor- 
rowed from the present or the past. How can the 
unknown be more intelligibly and impressively repre- 
sented than by emblems taken from what is known 
and familiar? Thus when Isaiah would express the 
thought that the Exiles of Israel shall be brought back 
to their own land under immediate and evident divine 
guidance and protection, he represents their return 
from the land of their oppressors as a fresh exodus 
out of Egypt, in which the miracle of the Red Sea 
shall be repeated (xi. 15), and water again brought 
for them from the rock (xlviii. 21). The particular 
forms in which this almighty intervention shall be 
exerted on their behalf are of small account compared 
with the essential fact itself. Thus, too, when Eze- 
kiel would make Israel sensible that they were on a 
par with the worst offenders, and that their future 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 21 5 

restoration was wholly of God's unmerited mercy, he 
tells them that Sodom and her daughters shall like- 
wise be restored to their former estate as well as they, 
and be associated with them in the closest intimacy 
and relationship (xvi. 53, 55, 61) ; not, of course, that 
there was to be a literal resurrection of the Cities of 
the Plain, destroyed by fire from Heaven, but that the 
same grace which rescues Israel will reach to Sodom's 
spiritual counterpart, and bring into restored com- 
munion with God, and into fellowship with his people, 
the most degraded heathen, the very dregs of the 
human race. (Compare Isai. i. 10; Rev. xi. 8.) 

It may have been of little consequence to Isaiah or 
to Micah, or to their contemporaries, to have the 
political changes disclosed to them by which Assyria 
was to be superseded on the map of the world or erased 
from the roll of nations ; but it was of vast moment 
to them to know that, whether the ancient Assyria 
should survive or whatever new Assyria might arise to 
take its place, the strife between the great empires of 
the world should hereafter give way to peaceful and 
amicable intercourse, and instead of their present 
animosity toward the people of God, they should be 
heartily united with Israel in the service of Jehovah. 
And should any future Assyria venture to molest 
Israel or disturb his peace, his Messiah would effec- 
tually protect him and avenge his cause. 

Of Nahum's and Zephaniah's predictions of the 
total destruction of Nineveh, Dr. Kuenen well says, 
" History has set its seal on these anticipations." He 
claims, however, that there was " one respect in which 



2l6 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

their predictions were not confirmed by the issue. 
Nineveh was depopulated and became a desolation in 
a comparatively brief space, but still not all at once " 
(p. 131). But how this militates against the truth of 
the prediction does not appear ; much less what there 
is to justify Dr. Kuenen in speaking as he does (p. 133) 
of " the opposition between the contents of the proph- 
ecy and the historical reality." A summary statement 
of an event occupying long periods of time and pass- 
ing through various phases, which seizes on its main 
features or depicts it in its consummation, may be 
just as true and for some important purposes vastly 
more effective than an account which enters into every 
minute detail. Nahum vividly describes the assault 
upon Nineveh, its capture and its desolation. That 
this would all be finished at a stroke he does not say. 
The fact is revealed to him ; the length of time that 
it would occupy, and the successive steps through 
which it would attain to full . accomplishment, are not 
revealed. But the fulfilment is none the less accurate 
on that account, now that every item in the prediction 
has been verified ; in fact, the longer the process the 
more far-seeing is he who can infallibly forecast its 
termination, and the clearer the evidence that it is no 
mere deduction of human sagacity. 

To this view of the case Dr. Kuenen interposes two 
objections: I. "It is judicial punishments which the 
Prophets announce. But the destiny of the heathen 
nations loses that character when slow decay takes 
the place of sudden destruction." Unless Dr. Kuenen 
is disposed to dispute the moral government of God 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 21 7 

altogether, and to deny the reality of divine retribu- 
tions in this world, he must mean, not that punish- 
ment ceases to be such because tardily inflicted or 
slowly evolved, but that men are in this case in dan- 
ger of not recognizing it as such, and of being diverted 
from considering it in its real nature as a judicial in- 
fliction, to what is merely subordinate and incidental. 
And this brings to light a prominent reason for that 
frequent peculiarity of prophetic representation which 
we are now considering and at which Dr. Kuenen 
takes such offence. The Prophet not only discloses 
but interprets the future. It is the finger of God in 
human events which he is particularly concerned to 
mark. Prophecy is not the random disclosure of the 
future for the sake of gratifying curiosity, exciting 
wonder, or even confirming a divine commission. 
This last is an incidental end of great value, but the 
Prophet is mainly and properly the inspired religious 
teacher and guide of the people. The purposes of 
God in the future, so far as these are revealed to him, 
supply lessons of warning and instruction. He is con- 
cerned with the future only as it manifests the grace 
or the justice of God ; with coming calamities only as 
judicial inflictions, with coming good only as a fruit of 
the divine favor. The minutiae of historical detail, if 
disclosed to him, would be nothing to his purpose ; the 
intervals of time, the fluctuations and varying phases 
of events, the second causes concerned in their produc- 
tion, are all unessential to the end for which prophecy 
is communicated, viz., that of impressing moral and 
spiritual lessons on the minds of the people. In fact, 



2l8 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

they are not only of inferior consequence, but it would 
be disturbing and distracting to introduce them. The 
lesson of God's judgment on a guilty nation is made 
more impressive by presenting it in its unity, by gath- 
ering it all up into one summary, comprehensive 
view, which shall truthfully represent and faithfully 
depict it in the aggregate or in certain marked and 
salient features, and direct attention to the moral se- 
quences and the design of God in the whole from first 
to last. . And, if this is to be done, it is of course nec- 
essary to pass over slightly or altogether leave out of 
sight* much that is purely accessory and contingent, 
and which would only serve to turn away the thoughts 
from the main point to be inculcated. 

And this is important, not only for the immediate 
hearers of the Prophet, but for those as well who live 
when the events predicted come to pass, to give them 
the true key for the understanding of that which they 
behold. Dr. Kuenen says,. " surely none of those 
who witnessed the decay of heathen nations could 
regard it, as the Prophet wished it to be regarded, as 
the execution of a sentence pronounced by Jahveh." 
But, instructed by the Prophet beforehand, men can 
do this : they can then trace in the slow evolutions 
of history what he has foreshown in his condensed 
picture and set in its' true divine relations. This ''de- 
viation in details," therefore, '-between the prediction 
and the historical fact," at which Dr. Kuenen cavils, 
results from the divine adaptation of prophecy to its 
proper end in the instruction and training of the 
people of God. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 219 

Dr. Kuenen's second objection, to the view that a 
neglect of the relations of time is consistent with the 
truth of prophecy, is that prophecy not infrequently 
does take cognizance of these relations. " Fixed 
dates are not wanting in the prophecies. The Proph- 
ets thus show that they perceive very well that dates 
are anything but indifferent. In a number of prophe- 
cies the cardinal thought itself stands or falls with 
the succession of events therein announced." This 
is certainly so. And we quite agree with Dr. Kuenen's 
criticism upon those who speak of the " perspective " 
character of prophecy as if it were one of its invaria- 
ble features, or of inner intuition as the fixed form of 
prophetical revelation, that they attribute to all proph- 
ecies what is applicable only to a portion of them. 
The phenomena of vision may be serviceable in illus- 
trating that frequent peculiarity of prophetic repre- 
sentation, to which we have before adverted ; but to 
resolve prophecy into vision and to determine its laws 
accordingly, is to enter the region of doubtful specu- 
lation. The Spirit of the LORD is limited to no one 
method in making His disclosures. The ends of His 
revelation are better answered sometimes, as we have 
seen, by excluding all reference to the lapse of time; 
at others definite dates are given, and the chronologi- 
cal order of events is distinctly indicated. And when 
the latter is the case, the fulfilment must of course 
conform to the statements of the prophecy in these 
particulars. 

The special application which Dr. Kuenen pro- 
poses of this principle is the following : " Is the judg- 



2 20 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

ment upon one or other heathen nation promised to 
the people of Israel, and represented as the repara- 
tion of the wrongs which they had endured, then the 
possibility of such a prophecy being realized ceases 
from the moment that Israel loses its national exist- 
ence, and thus can no longer reap the fruits of the 
destruction of its enemies" (p. 136). The fallacy of 
this is obvious. Israel sustained a twofold character : 
it was both a political and a religious body ; it was 
a nation, with its affinities of race and its hereditary 
institutions ; and it was the people of God, in cove- 
nant with Him, and embracing those who feared His 
name and obeyed His will. These two aspects, though 
historically blended in Israel, were not inseparable; 
and even while they were united they might be and 
they were mentally distinguished. Now, nothing can 
be plainer than that in their promises of future good 
the Prophets contemplate Israel, not as a nation, but 
as the people of God. It is their constant theme that 
the wicked must be purged out of Israel by divine 
judgments (Isai. i. 24 ff.) before the promised bles- 
sings can come, and that the holy seed alone shall be 
spared (Isai. vi. 13) ; though they were as numerous 
as the sand of the sea, only a remnant should return 
to the LORD and stay themselves on him (Isai. x. 
20-22). It shall be well with the righteous ; it shall 
be ill with the wicked (Isai. iii. 10, 11). "All the sin- 
ners of my people shall die by the sword " (Amos ix. 
10). "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the 
wicked" (Isai. xlviii. 22). Their possession of the 
Temple that was called by the Lord's name, and of 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 221 

the land which he had given them (Jer. vii. 14), and 
the promises made to their fathers (xi. 3 ff.), would 
not save them if disobedient and unfaithful. It was 
shown to Jeremiah (xxiv.) under the emblem of the 
good figs and the bad figs, and to Ezekiel in the 
vision of his eleventh chapter, that the wicked, how- 
ever they might be outwardly connected with Israel, 
were no real part of it (Hos. i. 9), and they had no 
proper share in the blessings that were in reserve. 
But, on the other hand, the sons of the stranger that 
join themselves to the LORD shall share the privileges 
of His people (Isai. lvi. 3-8). Egypt and Assyria, 
when they too serve the LORD, shall occupy the 
same relation to Him as Israel (Isai. xix. 23-25). 
The merchandise of Tyre (Isai. xxiii. 18) shall, like 
everything in Jerusalem (Zech. xiv. 21), be holiness 
to the Lord. Of all the nations that have provoked 
divine judgments, the LORD declares (Jer. xii. 16), 
" If they will diligently learn the ways of My people, 
to swear by My name, the LORD liveth, then shall 
they be built in the midst of My people." " Many 
nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and 
shall be My people " (Zech. ii. 11). Egypt, Babylon, 
Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia are to be accounted as 
native-born in Zion (Ps. lxxxvii. 4). 

On the basis of such statements, which abound 
upon every page of the prophetic writings, we are 
amply justified in affirming that the national exist- 
ence of Israel was, to the Prophets, quite a distinct 
thing from the existence of Israel as the people of 
God. They clearly contemplated the possibility that 



222 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

the former might be overturned ; they over and over 
again positively predict that it shall be ; but the lat- 
ter abides perpetual, unaffected by the ruins of the 
former. The national existence of Israel is no more. 
But the people of Jehovah, who worship and fear 
Him, who reverently receive and obey His Word 
through Moses and the Prophets, are more numer- 
ous than ever. They belong to every nation. They 
are found in every land. They are sprung from every 
race and family of mankind. These are the Israel of 
God in the true sense of the Prophets, who regard not 
natural lineage, but spiritual kinship. 

So far, then, from the termination of Israel's " na- 
tional existence " having set a limit to the fulfilment 
of the prophecies under consideration, the enlarge- 
ment of the faithful remnant of Israel by the acces- 
sion of believing Gentiles is supplying the required 
conditions and preparing the. way for a fulfilment in 
a fuller and more adequate sense than ever. The ful- 
filment began in each case with the judgment inflicted 
upon these nations severally by Assyria or by Baby- 
lon before Israel's political existence was extinguished, 
and when they could behold the avenging of their 
cause by the providence of God, and to some extent 
reap the benefits of it before the captivity or after the 
return. But " the meek shall inherit the earth ; " and 
the time is yet coming when these desolated seats of 
the ancient foes of God's people shall be occupied by 
those who truly fear His name. 

These are the two talismans on whose magical vir- 
tue Dr. Kuenen relies to set aside what have been 



V 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 223 

hitherto ranked among the most signal fulfilments of 
prophecy ; and thus easily and effectually are they dis- 
enchanted. They cannot abide the test of a candid 
examination. It is not essential to the accomplish- 
ment of a prediction that it should take place speed- 
ily or all at once, when the prediction itself makes no 
such requirement. And the loss of Israel's national 
existence does not put an end to the possibility of 
fulfilling the judgments predicted on their foes. We 
accept without hesitation the view which he imputes 
to believers in prophecy (p. 135), that it is " fulfilled 
exactly and literally, or in another form and at an- 
other period, but still always fulfilled ; " though we 
repel the latent sarcasm in his form of putting it, as 
though their only concern were to bring out a fulfil- 
ment by fair means or by foul. The truth is that an 
honest interpretation of prophecy, and comparison 
with the facts of history, uniformly carries with it the 
evidence of a fulfilment; and this is only to be es- 
caped by some such method as that of Dr. Kuenen, 
imposing arbitrary conditions not authorized by the 
prediction, and refusing to admit a fulfilment, how- 
ever obvious, unless these are complied with. 

To the predictions of Isaiah and Jeremiah respect- 
ing Babylon, with the exception of some trivialities, 
the bare statement of which would be a sufficient ref- 
utation, he has nothing to object but "the lingering 
process of decay through which the mighty city 
passed " to its desolation so accurately foretold ages 
before. 

Dr. Kuenen confesses that all which the Book of 



224 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

Daniel contains respecting " Alexander the Great and 
his successors," and especially " the fortunes of Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes, and that prince's measures against 
the Israelitish religion," is strictly accurate. But then 
he alleges that the account of the latest years of An- 
tiochus and all beyond that time is contradicted by 
the event ; and its account of matters " before Alex- 
ander the Great is not only incomplete, but defective, 
and partly inaccurate." Hence he infers that this 
book cannot have been the genuine production of the 
Prophet Daniel, but must belong to a much later 
date. "The writer's ignorance of these facts is at 
once explained if we assume that he wrote in the age 
of Epiphanes, and that in the year 165 B. c. But 
how can that ignorance be made to agree with the 
supposition that he was enlightened by supernatural 
revelation with regard to all the preceding matters ? 
Did that revelation begin to fail him at a certain 
point ? " But how if no such ignorance exists except 
in Dr. Kuenen's imagination, or must we even say it, 
his misrepresentation? How, still further, if the book 
contains clear and unambiguous prophecies, which 
have been undeniably fulfilled, reaching far beyond 
the date when he himself alleges it to have been 
written? His argument against its genuineness and 
its inspiration then falls of itself; and the admission 
which he has made of its correctness in relation to 
events long after Daniel's time becomes a confession 
of a long series of predictions accurately accom- 
plished. 

This it is not difficult to show. The charge (p. 144, 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 225 

note 7), that, whereas Antiochus died in Persia,- it is 
predicted (Dan. xi. 40-45) that he should find his end 
in Palestine, is refuted by simply reading (ver. 45), 
"And he shall come to his end, and none shall help 
him ; " this was to be after he had planted " the taber- 
nacle of his palace in the glorious holy mountain," 
but that it should be immediately after or in the same 
locality is neither said nor implied. An error is pre- 
tended in the 2300 days (viii. 14), and in the three 
and a half years (xii. 7), the 1290 and the 1335 days 
(vers. 11, 12) ; but their literal exactness is defended 
not only by believing interpreters as Havernick, but 
even by others who, like Bertholdt and Lengerke, 
attach no more credit to prophecy than Dr. Kuenen 
himself. The statement that the writer of Daniel 
" knows only of four Persian kings " has no other 
foundation than the circumstance that he has occasion 
to speak of Xerxes (xi. 2) as the fourth after Cyrus 

(X. I). 

The assertion that " he is in error even with regard 
to the Babylonian kings, of whom the last is, accord- 
ing to him, Belshazzar, the son and, as it appears, the 
successor of Nebuchadnezzar," is a very extraordinary 
one in the present state of our knowledge on this sub- 
ject. Until a comparatively recent time Belshazzar 
was a puzzle, and the charge that the author of the 
Book of Daniel had blundered here was freely made. 
No other writer of antiquity makes mention of such a 
prince. All who speak of the last king of Babylon 
call him Nabonned, or by some name so nearly ap- 
proaching this in form as to be plainly identical. 

15 



226 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

According to Berosus, he was not of royal descent, 
but reached the throne by a successful conspiracy; 
and, instead of being put to death when Babylon was 
taken (Dan. v. 30), he was at that time at Borsippa, 
which he surrendered without a siege, and was in con- 
sequence generously treated by Cyrus, who made him 
Governor of Caramania, where he died. Xenophon, 
indeed, says that the king, whose name he does not 
give, but whom he styles " impious," was slain in the 
capture of Babylon. But it was the fashion to discredit 
Xenophon and Daniel, and to affirm that the native 
historian Berosus must be right. Thus the case stood 
until a few years since, when the whole matter was 
cleared up and Daniel thoroughly vindicated by the 
discovery of a cylinder 1 of Nabonned, King of Baby- 
lon, in which he makes repeated mention of his eldest 
son Belshazzar (Bel-sarussur). No doubt Nabonned 
had associated his son Belshazzar with himself in the 
sovereignty. When Nabonned was defeated by Cyrus 
and obliged to shut himself up in Borsippa, Bel- 
shazzar remained in Babylon and perished in the over- 
throw of the city. If we suppose Nabonned to have 
been married to a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 who 
would then be the queen of Dan. v. 10, Nebuchad- 
nezzar could with as much propriety be called the 

1 Menant, " Babylone et la Chaldee," pp. 254 ff. 

2 This supposition is commended not only by its perfectly reconcil- 
ing all the statements in the case, and by the analogy of Neriglissar 
(Nergal-sharezer), the successful conspirator against his brother-in-law 
Evil-Merodach, but likewise by the fact, attested by the Behistun in- 
scription, that Nabonned had a son Nebuchadnezzar, who was twice 
personated by impostors in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 227 

father of Belshazzar (Dan. v. 2 ff.) as David is called 
the father of King Josiah (II. Chron. xxxiv. 2, 3). If 
now, as Dr. Kuenen would have us believe, the Book 
of Daniel is the production, not of a contemporary and 
an eye-witness, but of some nameless Jew of Palestine 
nearly four centuries after the fall of Babylon, how 
comes it to pass that it alone of all ancient writings 
has preserved the name of Belshazzar and the memory 
of his existence? 

Another equally unfortunate thrust at the credibility 
of Daniel is the charge that he " thrusts in the Median 
monarchy between the Babylonian and the Persian." 
His mention of the brief rule of Darius the Mede, 
which is also certified by Xenophon, and has besides 
such intrinsic probability under the circumstances, is 
another instance of minute accuracy where other his- 
torians of the period have passed over in silence a 
reign attended by no lasting consequences and eclipsed 
by the greater glory of that of Cyrus. The idea of a 
" Median monarchy," however, following the Baby- 
lonian, and distinct from the Persian, is not sanctioned 
by Daniel, but foisted upon him by Dr. Kuenen for a 
purpose of his own. In order to bring the contents 
of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii.) and of the 
vision of the four beasts (vii.) into the period preced- 
ing the time which he has fixed for the composition of 
the book, he maintains (p. 141) that " the four king- 
doms are the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, 
and the Grecian (that of Alexander the Great and his 
successors)." But that the Median and the Persian 
are not two, but one and the same kingdom, appears 



2 28 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

from the fact that the Medes and Persians are always 
united, both in this book and elsewhere. It was an- 
nounced to Belshazzar (v. 28), " Thy kingdom is 
divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Under 
Darius the Mede the law is that of the Medes and Per- 
sians (vi. 8, 12, 15). The ram with the two horns in 
the vision of ch. viii. represents (ver. 20) the kings of 
Media and Persia. So under Ahasuerus (Xerxes) it 
is Persia and Media (Esth. i. 3, 14, 18), the Persians 
and the Medes (i. 19). And in the Behistun inscrip- 
tion of Darius Hystaspes we find repeatedly the same 
combination, Persia and Media, the Persian and Me- 
dian army. The same thing appears from the nature 
of the case. The Median was not overturned by the 
Persian kingdom, as the Babylonian by the Persian 
and the Persian by the Grecian ; but there was simply 
a change in the reigning monarch by peaceful legiti- 
mate succession. The four heads of the third beast 
(vii. 6) indicate the fourfold division of the third mon- 
archy, which was true of the Grecian kingdom (see 
viii. 8, 22), but inapplicable to the Persian. 

If, now, the Medo-Persian is but one kingdom, the 
second, and the Grecian the third, then the fourth 
kingdom must be the Roman, — which best suits the 
description, and which is the interpretation that has 
been put upon it from the beginning. This delinea- 
tion of the character and conquests of the Roman 
empire, the erection of Messiah's kingdom while it 
still lasted, its subsequent weakness and subdivision, 
and the arising of a great persecuting power out of it, 
are predictions which were manifestly fulfilled long 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 229 

after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and which 
require the assumption of a divine supernatural fore- 
sight, even though the book were written at as late a 
period as that to which Dr. Kuenen himself assigns it, 
— not to speak of the further prophecy of the seventy 
weeks (ix. 24-27), fulfilled in the ministry and vicarious 
death of Jesus Christ, at the predicted time, and the 
subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. Can such evi- 
dence of inspiration coexist with imposture? Can 
predictions such as these, the reality of which even 
the most advanced critical hypothesis fails to set aside, 
be joined in the same production with pretended pre- 
dictions which are not really such, which are not gen- 
uine utterances of the Prophet from whom they claim 
to be, but falsely issued in his name after the events 
had come to pass ? This prediction, that the Grecian 
empire would be succeeded by the Roman, further 
shows that Daniel did not expect the resurrection and 
final judgment to follow immediately after the deliv- 
erance from the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
and thus corrects the false inferences drawn from the 
transition in xii. 1, 2. Moreover, if the Book of Dan- 
iel were a spurious production, first written and pub- 
lished 165 B. C, and contained the extravagant and 
fanatical expectations imputed to it by Dr. Kuenen 
respecting the miraculous death of Antiochus in Pales- 
tine, to be followed at once by the coming of the 
Messiah and the resurrection — expectations which 
were falsified by the event within two years — must it 
not have been discredited at once? How could it 
ever have gained credit as the genuine work of a true 



23O KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

Prophet of God, who lived nearly four centuries 
before? and especially how could it have attained 
such speedy and acknowledged influence that the 
Book of Maccabees, in recording the history of these 
times, adopts its very language and borrows its forms 
of expression? 

In regard to the judgments predicted upon Israel, 
Dr. Kuenen is at great pains to represent the Prophets 
as at variance with one another and with the facts of 
the case; and the methods which he employs are as 
extraordinary as the results at which he arrives. He 
alleges that neither Hosea nor Amos " expect the 
destruction of the kingdom of Judah," though they 
clearly intimate that it shall be destroyed (Hos. i. 11, 
viii. 14; Amos ii. 5, ix. 11) ; and this is besides a sub- 
ject foreign to their theme, in which silence cannot 
with any propriety be construed as a denial. Amos 
predicts the captivity of the ten tribes, but Dr. Kuenen 
cavils because he does not explicitly mention the 
Assyrians, nor state how long it would be before the 
Exile, and because he exhorts the people to repent- 
ance ; from which the inference is drawn that he could 
not have foreseen that they would remain obdur- 
ate, and that the judgments which he threatens 
would really be inflicted. He endeavors to show that 
Hosea is vacillating and self-contradictory, and finally 
confesses that he " does not contradict himself, 
if we regard his intention more than the words he 
employs." 

Micah iii. 12 predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, 
which was accomplished by the Chaldeans. Isaiah 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 23 1 

predicts that it shall be spared in the invasion of Sen- 
nacherib. 1 And this is gravely represented as a con- 

1 Of course Dr. Kuenen makes the most that he can out of the 
chronological difficulty which Assyrian scholars pretty unanimously 
agree to find in Isai. xxxvi. 1, and the parallel passage, II. Kings xviii. 
13. While the testimony of the monuments confirms the statements 
of these chapters in the most remarkable manner, and even in minute 
particulars, it would appear that Sargon was still King of Assyria in 
Hezekiah's fourteenth year, and that the invasion of Sennacherib very 
probably did not take place till thirteen years later. " It is impossible," 
he says (p. 288), "to imagine that we have here an error of a copy- 
ist; but how then can a blunder so remarkable have originated with 
regard to such an important fact ? " His solution is that an expedition 
of Sargon has been confounded with that of Sennacherib ; and this 
mingling of two separate events, which awakens a suspicion of other 
inaccuracies, betrays a writer long posterior to the occurrences them- 
selves. In his opinion this narrative was not written by Isaiah him- 
self, but has been adopted into the volume of his prophecies from the 
books of Kings. Consequently, " in its present form" it "is about a 
hundred and fifty years later than the events which it records " 
(p. 287). 

Refreshing as it is to find Dr. Kuenen thus playing the unaccustomed 
rdle of an assertor of the accuracy of the received text, we cannot help 
thinking that, if the conclusions of Assyriologists be correct in this 
instance, the readiest mode of reconciliation is to assume an error in 
the number, and to suppose that "fourteenth" has been wrongly sub- 
stituted for " twenty-seventh." It would not be difficult to account for 
such a mistaken attempt at correction on the part of transcribers. 
Hezekiah's sickness (Isai. xxxviii. 5 ; compare II. Kings xviii. 2) 
occurred in the fourteenth year of his reign. Hastily assuming the 
order of narration to be the order of time, and inferring a closer chro- 
nological juxtaposition from the general expression " in those days " 
( Isai. xxxviii. 1 ) than the terms really require, transcribers may have 
judged that consistency demanded the number "fourteenth" in xxxvi. 
I, and have made the requisite emendation. But now if xxxviii., xxxix. 
really precede xxxvi., xxxvii. by thirteen years — and that they are prior 
in order of time appears from xxxviii. 6 — then a convincing argument 
thence arises that these chapters are original in Isaiah and borrowed 
thence in Kings. This inversion of the chronological order is unac- 



232 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

tradiction, though, to make it out, Micah's comment 
on his own words (iv. 10), "thou shalt go even to 
Babylon," must be eliminated from the text, and 
Isaiah's prediction of the Babylonish captivity (xxxix. 
6) is oracularly pronounced to be spurious. 

Isaiah predicts (vii. 7, 8) that within threescore and 
five years Ephraim shall be broken that it be not a 
people, and (ver. 16) that this process of extinction shall 
be begun by the desolation of the land of Ephraim 
before a child could reach that age at which it could 
know to refuse the evil and choose the good. To 
Dr. Kuenen's mind these passages contradict one 
another, though both are in exact accordance with 
the event, — the one fulfilled by Tiglath-pileser, the 
other by Esarhaddon. Of the latter he rids himself 
in the easiest manner possible by assuming an inter- 
polation. Allow him to expunge what he pleases, 
and to put his own meaning on what he suffers to 
remain, and he need not find it difficult to prove or 
disprove anything he likes. 

Isaiah further predicts (vii. 15, 16) thatjudah should 
be relieved from the present invasion by Syria and 
Ephraim within three or four years ; that butter and 
honey, the subsistence of a ravaged country, should 

countable in Kings, while in Isaiah the whole structure of the book 
demands it. The entire preceding section of the book of Isaiah con- 
sists of prophecies relating to the Assyrian invasion, which is first 
completed by the narrative of its actual occurrence. Then the sick- 
ness of Hezekiah, followed by the King of Babylon's message and the 
prediction of the captivity in Babylon (xxxix. 5-7), begins a new sec- 
tion, containing prophecies relating to that event and the deliverance 
from it. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 233 

not be eaten beyond that time. Dr. Kuenen refers it 
to a subject with which it has nothing in the world to 
do, and makes it mean that the invasion by Assyria 
and Egypt spoken of in the subsequent verses of the 
chapter should occur within this brief interval. And 
then he triumphantly exclaims (p. 169) : " But it did 
not take place. In the reign of Ahaz, and also dur- 
ing the first half of the reign of Hezekiah, Judah 
continued to be exempt from an Assyrian inva- 
sion." 

Jeremiah's prediction, steadfastly adhered to from 
the beginning to the end of his ministry, of the over- 
throw of Jerusalem and the exile of the people, was 
confessedly fulfilled. But Dr. Kuenen tries to break 
its force by alleging that other Prophets took a con- 
trary view. Habakkuk's brief prophecy is wholly 
occupied with the judgment upon the Chaldeans ; we 
cannot accordingly expect in it a statement of what 
shall befall Jerusalem, and yet even here see i. 5-10. 
Upon this book Dr. Kuenen makes the following most 
extraordinary comment: " In vain do we attempt to 
thrust in the fall of Jerusalem anywhere into his 
prophecies. Habakkuk has not even a faint presenti- 
ment of it ; or rather he denies distinctly that such 
a catastrophe should be admitted into Jahveh's pur- 
poses." Joel of the preceding period, and Zechariah 
(xii.-xiv.) from the period after the Exile, are dis- 
located from their true position, affirmed on the most 
precarious critical grounds to be Jeremiah's contem- 
poraries, their language applied to a matter of which 
they are not treating, and they are thus made to 



234 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

declare that, contrary to trie allegations of Jeremiah, 
the land would not be invaded by the Chaldeans, or 
that the LORD would visibly interfere at the moment 
of the capture of the city. And to cap the climax, 
the false prophet Hananiah (Jer. xxviii.) is bolstered up 
by being placed in such company, and represented as 
declaring in the name of Jehovah, with as much right 
to be considered His messenger as Jeremiah, directly 
the opposite of what the latter asserted. And on this 
showing it is affirmed that we have here Prophet 
against Prophet ! 

As for " the predictions which have reference to the 
restoration of Israel," Dr. Kuenen affirms, and he 
italicizes his affirmation, " not one of them has been 
realized!' We admit, without a moment's hesitation, 
that if these predictions are to be understood solely in 
a national and local sense, they have never yet been 
accomplished in anything like their full extent of 
meaning. But this very fact creates a presumption 
against such a limitation. The judgments denounced 
against Israel and the nations have all been inflicted, 
as we have seen, notwithstanding Dr. Kuenen's con- 
tradiction. And it would be strange if in the prom- 
ised blessings there is no correspondence whatever 
between the prediction and the reality; and this 
especially as there was in the return from the Baby- 
lonish captivity an incipient fulfilment of these prom- 
ises in every particular, which, as Dr. Kuenen is 
himself forward to assure us, the subsequent Prophets 
recognized as " the beginning of the realization" of 
them (p. 194), and which they accepted as the pledge 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 235 

of their full and final accomplishment. There was a 
return from Exile though it was partial, not total ; 
and there was no such vast multiplication of the peo- 
ple as had been promised. There was an end of the 
schism and of all hostility between Judah and Ephraim, 
though no complete union was effected of these two 
branches of the covenant people in one body. They 
were led by a prince of the House of David, but no 
son of David sat as king upon his father's throne ; and 
Israel remained subject to the domination of the Gen- 
tiles instead of themselves ruling the world. There 
was not the full return of the people to God, nor the 
abundant tokens of His favor which were promised 
in the blissful future. 

Considered as the first stage of accomplishment, 
the restoration from Babylon might well be reckoned, 
as was done by Zechariah and his compeers, as an 
earnest of more to come. But in itself it plainly fell 
far below the prophetic anticipations, and cannot be 
regarded as a complete and satisfactory fulfilment of 
what had been foretold in such glowing terms. And 
Dr. Kuenen is right in insisting that these predictions 
are no longer " capable of being realized," if this 
budding fulfilment has proved abortive, and after the 
lapse of two thousand years there has not only been 
no further progress towards fulfilment, but these im- 
agined tokens of it have themselves been falsified 
and obliterated by the complete abolition of Israel's 
national existence and the long dispersion of ages. 
To urge as the only defence that can be made on 
behalf of these predictions, that whereas they "are not 



236 KUENEN OX THE PROPHETS 

realized as yet," they " shall be realized some time" 
by " the return of the whole of Israel to their native 
country, and Israel's supremacy over the nations of the 
earth in the last days," is to " contradict the expla- 
nation of the old prophecies which is presented in 
the Old Testament itself" (pp. 186, 196). 

But whatever may still remain to be developed in 
the future, and in whatever form, the past has not been 
unproductive. The promise given in the return from 
captivity has already been succeeded by large results. 
The remnant of Israel has become a vast multitude. 
The Son of David is seated upon His everlasting 
throne, and is extending His conquests among the 
nations; and the blessings of His reign are unfolding 
themselves in the experience of mankind. The hope 
of Israel is realized in Christ and the Gospel. All the 
prophetic anticipations of coming good for Israel and 
the world were linked with the great Redeemer and 
King who was to rise from David's line. 

Strangely enough, Dr. Kuenen goes groping through 
the whole Old Testament, and absolutely professes his 
inability to find any prediction of a personal and indi- 
vidual Messiah there at all. " The word ' Messiah ' is 
not used in the Old Testament in any one instance" 
he tells us in emphatic italics, " to denote a descend- 
ant of David who shall reign over Israel restored" 
(p. 202). The promise to our first parents (Gen. hi. 
15) " has no connection " with this subject; " the ser- 
pent is — a serpent and nothing more " (p. 377). The 
promise to Abraham is not that all families of the 
earth shall be blessed in him or in his seed, but that 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 237 

" he shall be so prosperous, his posterity shall be so 
numerous and fortunate, that nothing better or higher 
can be imagined than the enjoyment of what he or his 
race possesses." The blessing pronounced upon 
Judah (Gen. xlix. 10) is not of the coming of Shiloh, 
but of the coming to Shiloh, " the common sanc- 
tuary." 

Jeremiah " does not expect one single king of 
David's family, but an unbroken succession of Davidic 
kings " (p. 205). The same is the case with Ezekiel 
(p. 209). So, too, Micah and Zechariah (ix.-xi.) : 
"The king whom they announce is described as one of 
the children of men, but therefore seems also of neces- 
sity to partake of mortality, the lot of them all." 
Probably in Zechariah i.-viii. " the man whose name 
is Branch " is " regarded also by him as the first of an 
unbroken succession of rulers like to him." " In 
Isaiah also he is no supernatural being." " ' Mighty 
God ' (Isai. ix. 6), viewed in itself, might have afforded 
some ground for the conjecture that a supernatural 
ruler was present to the mind of the Prophet, and 
that the more because the same name is employed 
elsewhere to denote Jahveh (x. 21). But this con- 
jecture is not confirmed : all the other features point to 
a king of human origin." " It is possible that Isaiah 
attributed an endless reign to the king himself whom 
he expected," but his meaning more probably is 
" that nothing shall interrupt the regular succession 
of the kings of his house." 

In Isaiah xl.-lxvi. "the servant of Jehovah" is com- 
monly understood by believing interpreters to denote 



238 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

the true people of God, including and culminating in 
the Messiah, who was to spring from the midst of 
them, and with whom they are here associated or 
identified in their mission, character, and destiny, in 
humiliation and in glory. This simple and obvious 
interpretation is demanded by the reference (lv. 3) to 
" the sure mercies of David ; " it explains what Dr. 
Kuenen admits to be " undeniable, that the servant of 
Jahveh is sometimes described as if he were one indi- 
vidual ; " it also explains how he can have a work to 
do for Israel as well as for the nations, and how his 
sufferings can be unmerited and vicarious ; and it brings 
Isaiah into harmony with himself and with the other 
Prophets. But Dr. Kuenen prefers to find here a 
diversity between the Prophets ; " The very remarkable 
phenomenon presents itself, that the expectations con- 
cerning the- dynasty of David become disjoined from 
their proper object, and are transferred to the whole 
people" (p. 220). He actually adduces the apparent 
conflict between the death and burial of the Servant 
of Jehovah (Isai. liii. 8, 9), and his prolonging his 
days and enjoying a satisfying reward (vers. 10, 11), 
in proof that " the particulars which the Prophet 
mentions must be distributed among the different per- 
sons who together constitute the collective number." 
And he alleges that " what is communicated regard- 
ing the destiny of ' the servant ' does not admit of 
being harmonized with the description of the scion of 
David given by Isaiah and Micah " (p. 223). 

The Son of Man, who came with the clouds of 
Heaven (Dan. vii. 13), is in his view not the Messiah, 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 239 

but the Israelitish nation. And Daniel's prophecy 
of the 70 weeks (ix. 24 ff.) has nothing to do with 
a Messiah of the House of David. The author, who 
is assumed to have lived under Antiochus Epiphanes, 
is simply describing, under the veil of prophecy, what 
had already taken place. Jeremiah, xxv. 11, 12, xxix. 
10, had assigned the term of seventy years to the des- 
olations of Jerusalem, and this had been strictly ful- 
filled according to Ezra i. 1 ; II. Chron. xxxvi. 22. 
But this imaginary author is supposed to have thought 
otherwise, and accordingly to have conceived that 
Jeremiah must have meant, not ordinary, but sabbati- 
cal years, or weeks of years, and to have developed in 
vers. 24-27, his conception of that prophecy and his 
adjustment of it to what had taken place down to his 
own day. " The going forth of the commandment to 
restore and to build Jerusalem," which is (ver. 25) 
the starting-point of the 70 weeks, is alleged to be 
Jeremiah's prophecy already referred to, though this 
related to an entirely different matter from the building 
of Jerusalem, — viz., the period of Babylon's domina- 
tion and of Israel's subjection and captivity. From 
this prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim until 
" an anointed prince," who is not the Jewish Messiah, 
but Cyrus, is declared to be " seven weeks," or 49 
years ; though in actual fact, and according to the 
biblical reckoning, it was 70 years (a computation 
which is implied even in Dan. ix. 2), the discrepancy 
being laid to the account of ignorance in the writer. 
After 62 weeks more, or 434 years, " Messiah is cut 
off," not the Jewish Messiah, nor Cyrus as before, 



240 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

but the high-priest Onias. In reality Onias was mur- 
dered 365 years after the first of Cyrus, leaving an 
error of 69 years to be accounted for as the preced- 
ing. This is further aggravated in the present in- 
stance by the allegation made in a different connection, 
that the writer knew of no Persian king later than 
Xerxes, and that he imagined him to be the antago- 
nist of Alexander. The deficit is thus swelled to 
200 years, and it becomes necessary to assume that 
he assigned 362 years instead of 162 to the empire of 
Alexander and his Syrian successors preceding the 
death of Onias. And this enormous blunder is com- 
mitted in a period with the details of whose history he 
shows such familiarity in ch. xi. that mainly on this 
ground the book is pronounced spurious and its date 
fixed during the persecutions of Antiochus ! And all 
this to escape the plain reference of the prophecy to 
the advent of the Messiah. Can any one be so blind 
as he who is determined not to see? 

Two things remain to be accounted for after this 
total abstraction from the Old Testament of the doc- 
trine of the Messiah, and especially the disappearance 
in the latest Prophets of any expectation even of a 
revival of the dynasty of David. One is that proph- 
ecies which are so destitute of any reference to the 
Messiah should ever have given rise to the expecta- 
tion of His coming. Another is that they all admit of 
such ready application to Jesus Christ. 

Dr. Kuenen objects that to find in Christianity the 
fulfilment of the prophecies respecting Israel is to 
" spiritualize " them, and thus give them another than 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 24 1 

their real meaning. We reply, on the contrary, that 
with some diversity in outward form and incidental 
circumstances there is nevertheless the closest adher- 
ence to the essential meaning of the Prophets. The 
fact is, as Dr. Kuenen states it (p. 188), with the view, 
not of recommending, but of disparaging the current 
opinion on this subject: The prophecies of the Old 
Testament are " more tlian fulfilled, or in other words, 
the reality under the New Testament dispensation far 
surpassed the expectations under the Old." 

The Prophets everywhere recognize and insist upon 
the distinction between the outward forms of the Old 
Testament and their inward spiritual meaning. Isaiah 
declares (i. 1 1-20) that it is not sacrifices and burnt- 
offerings, oblations and incense, treading God's courts, 
new moons and sabbaths, feasts and assemblies, that 
God requires, but purity of heart and life, and obedi- 
ence to His will. When now He speaks (ii. 2-4) of the 
nations hereafter going up to the mountain of Jehovah, 
to the house of the God of Jacob, it is plain that the 
external act of pilgrimage to that locality does not 
exhaust his thought: it is in fact a very subordinate 
part of it. Its only value or meaning to him is as the 
legitimate mode of expressing his essential idea that 
these nations would pay their worship to the God of 
Israel, would be taught by him of his ways, and would 
walk in his paths. And if any other mode of doing 
this is equally legitimate and acceptable to the God 
of Israel, who will say that it does not as perfectly 
meet Isaiah's expectation and correspond to his 

thought? — especially as a figurative character is 

16 



242 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

given to this whole representation by its opening 
words. Dr. Kuenen himself says (p. 247): "The 
Prophet may be understood to have meant figura- 
tively what he says about the exaltation of Zion on 
the top of the mountains ; " but he adds, " On the 
other hand, the pilgrimage to the Temple on Zion 
must be understood literally. . . . We should deprive 
the prophecy of its meaning and force if we attempted 
to explain it spiritually." There is nothing to justify 
this assertion, or the arbitrary line here drawn between 
what is figurative and what is literal, unless it be the 
positive air with which it is done. 

The same Prophet, or, according to Dr. Kuenen's 
critical hypothesis, another Prophet in a later age, 
declares (Isai. lxvi. 1-3) that heaven is Jehovah's 
throne and the earth His footstool ; man can build 
Him no fitting house ; the offering of oxen and lambs 
and incense is a crime and an abomination to Him, 
except as joined with and expressing inward piety; 
He regards with favor only him that is humble and of 
a contrite spirit, and trembleth at His word. He then 
adds (ver. 23) : " And it shall come to pass that from 
one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to 
another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, 
saith Jehovah." Apart from the physical impossibil- 
ity of weekly and monthly pilgrimages from all parts 
of the earth, even if this be limited to lands then 
known ; apart also from the fact that this is greatly in 
excess of the requirements of the Law, which enjoined 
pilgrimages to the Sanctuary but thrice in the year, 
at the annual feasts — is it not plain that the stress is 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 243 

laid upon worship before Jehovah? The sacred sea- 
sons and the central sanctuary are simply referred to as 
the authorized place and times of acceptable service. 
If the same authority which had hitherto required 
them should hereafter dispense with them, of what 
account would they be in the Prophet's eyes? It is to 
" worship in spirit and in truth " that his thought was 
directed, and not to worship in Jerusalem, except as 
the divinely prescribed place of a true and spiritual 
adoration. 

Jehovah's worship, though for the time then present 
it had a local seat, was not, in the judgment of the 
Prophets, bound to any one place by an indissoluble 
tie. The worship of their father Abraham, who was 
the friend of God (Isai. xli. 8), was untrammelled by 
any fixed locality. The place for the Sanctuary was 
" the place that Jehovah should choose " (Deut. xii. 
5). Jeremiah speaks of God's doing to Jerusalem as 
He had done to Shiloh, which He had abandoned (vii. 
12-14, xxvi. 6). He looks forward to a time when 
the Ark of the Covenant should not be remembered 
nor missed (iii. 16), and God's new covenant should 
be written in the hearts of His people (xxxi. 31 ff.). 
Ezekiel in vision saw the glory of Jehovah forsake 
the Temple and the city (xi. 23), and God himself 
promised to be a Sanctuary to His exiled people in 
the countries where they shall come (ver. 16). 

And yet when a Prophet who so clearly distinguishes 
between the shell and the kernel depicts the Temple 
and the service and the Holy Land of the future, Dr. 
Kuenen insists that this must all be literally under- 



244 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

stood because of its " copiousness and entering into 
minute details " (p. 240). And the life-diffusing 
stream from the Temple (Ezek. xlvii.), which forms a 
part of the same picture, was in the intention of the 
Prophet " an actual stream," because the description 
is " so exact and detailed " (p. 234), though the cor- 
responding streams spoken of by Joel (iii. 18) and 
Zechariah (xiv. 8) are admitted to be figurative. We 
are prepared to hear him say next, for a like reason, 
that the cherubim so minutely described (Ezek. i.) were 
actually existing beings, wheels and eyes and all ; and 
the eagles of chapter xvii. were literal eagles ; and the 
women of chapter xxiii. literal women ; and when the 
restoration of Sodom and her daughters is promised 
(xvi. 53-61), the Prophet expected the buried city of 
Sodom to be brought up from the bottom of the Dead 
Sea and restored to its former condition. He could 
still silence all objections by the same plea that he 
uses now (p. 242) : " What we should almost desig- 
nate as fantastic is evidently in complete accordance 
with his [Ezekiel's] ideals." 

Dr. Kuenen himself points out (p. 191) the close 
connection between the ideas of the return of Israel 
to Canaan and their conversion to God. A return 
to Palestine without conversion to God would not be 
what was in the Prophet's mind and heart. And it is 
only as Palestine was Jehovah's- land that returning to 
it had any religious significance. A return to God 
and the enjoyment of his favor and blessing is the 
essential thought, and Canaan is but the outward 
form in which that favor was for the time concen- 
trated. 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 245 

Moreover, descent from the Patriarchs is not with 
the Prophets the constituent principle of the people 
of God. Participation in the blessings promised to 
Israel is not determined by lineage or by nationality, 
but by inward character and spiritual relationship. 
" Ye are not My people," said Hosea (i. 9), speaking 
in the name of Jehovah to the ungodly Israelites, 
"and I will not be your God." The Prophets with one 
voice denounce the judgments of God upon the sinners 
in Israel. The wicked mass must be purged away ; 
they have neither part nor lot in the good things 
to come ; it is only the pure remnant that are left for 
whom the promises are made. Ezekiel (xi. 15) was 
instructed to recognize " the whole house of Israel " 
in the exiles, to the disregard of the degenerate inhab- 
itants of Jerusalem, who were abandoned of God and 
given over to destruction. And, on the other hand, 
the stranger that hath joined himself to Jehovah need 
not fear separation from the Lord's people (Isai. 
lvi. 3). And when (Isai. xix. 25) "Jehovah of Hosts 
shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people, and 
Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel mine inher- 
itance," what has become of national distinctions? 1 
How can even Dr. Kuenen, with any consistency, 
refuse to recognize in Christianity the universal wor- 
ship of Jehovah predicted by the Prophets, when he 
imputes to Malachi such an excess of liberalism that 
when he speaks (Mai. i. 11) of the incense offered to 
Jehovah's name in every place, " he is thinking of the 

1 See the passages of like tenor quoted above, pp. 220 f., and nu- 
merous others in the books of the Prophets. 



246 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

zeal and sincerity with which the nations served their 
gods ; he, convinced of the unity of Jahveh, regards 
their worship as being properly destined and intended 
for the one true God." 

We have not adduced the authority of the New 
Testament, which is abundantly and decisively given 
upon this point, because this has no weight with Dr. 
Kuenen. We have interpreted the meaning of the 
Prophets in this matter by their own utterances. And, 
themselves being judges, no bar is interposed to the 
recognition of the fulfilment of their prophecies by the 
changes which have taken place in the outward forms 
of worship, or in its local seat, or in national relations. 
The Prophets may not have been aware of the changes 
which Messiah's coming would introduce. There 
were wise reasons why the temporary nature of the 
Old Testament institutions should not be prematurely 
disclosed. But while the temporary form in which 
their ideas were clothed has been stripped away, the 
ideas abide in their unchanging reality and truth. All 
that was essential in the Prophets' own estimation, 
and much more and better than they hoped or knew, 
has been accomplished in Christ and the Gospel. 

We have now examined seriatim every prediction 
classed by Dr. Kuenen among the " unfulfilled proph- 
ecies," whether relating to the Gentiles or to Israel. 
We believe that no objection, great or small, that he 
has brought against them has escaped attention. And 
we are willing to submit it to the candid reader whether 
he has made out a case in any one instance. 

Upon this flimsy basis rests the entire argument 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 247 

contained in the volume which we are examining, 
everything else being subsidiary and supplemental. 
The remainder, though offering abundant and very 
inviting matter for comment, must be despatched in 
a very few sentences. Dr. Kuenen seeks to rid him- 
self of the prophecies, which he confesses to have 
been fulfilled, in three several ways. 

1st. By appealing to the non-fulfilment of others, 
which he claims to have established, — with what jus- 
tice we have already seen. 

2d. By the legerdemain of modern criticism, which 
peremptorily waives aside any witness that it is not 
convenient to hear, and which is ever ready to suspect 
the genuineness or the accuracy of the text upon 
grounds which, in their last analysis, cover an as- 
sumption of the very point to be proved, — viz., that 
prophecy is impossible. 

3d. By the gratuitous and unfounded allegation of 
bad faith on the part of the Prophets themselves. He 
distinctly charges Jeremiah and Ezekiel in particular 
with having modified their predictions after the event, 
so as to make it appear that they had minutely and 
accurately foretold what they never had foretold at 
all. Thus he says, in regard to the latter Prophet 
(pp. 328-330) : "The passages of Ezekiel explained 
above contain no real predictions. Whatever he may 
have spoken to his fellow-exiles in the years preceding 
the destruction of Jerusalem, he has written the proph- 
ecies which we now possess after that catastrophe, 
without troubling himself in the least about literal 
reproduction of his oral preaching." " Though it may 



248 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

be impossible to reconcile such a method of procedure 
with our notions of literary good faith, yet it was not 
uncommon in ancient times, and specifically in Israel." 
" They are not real predictions, but historical reminis- 
cences in a prophetical form, vaticinia post eventum" 
He would accordingly have us suppose that these 
Prophets falsely claim in their writings to have uttered 
time after time the most astonishing predictions, 
which met in every case a literal and precise fulfil- 
ment ; and yet their auditors, who must have known 
the falsity of this claim, at once accepted these writ- 
ings and handed them down as true prophecies re- 
ceived by inspiration from the mouth of God. We 
confess that we are of Dr. Kuenen's own opinion with 
regard to this expedient of his (p. 328) : " Many will 
at once be inclined to reject it as a subterfuge, by 
the help of which I try to escape from the dogmatical 
conclusions to which the literally-fulfilled prophecies 
of Ezekiel ought to have led." And how does this 
assertion, that Jeremiah and Ezekiel altered and re- 
touched their predictions to make them correspond 
with the event, comport with what he maintains else- 
where, that both these Prophets have included among 
their writings predictions (e. g.> respecting Tyre and 
Egypt) which had been glaringly and notoriously 
falsified in their own day, and that Ezekiel admits it 
without being in the least disturbed thereby (p. 1 10) ? 

The accounts given of the Prophets in the historical 
books are swept away in the most summary and re- 
lentless manner. He admits (p. 401) that the predic- 
tions of " the Prophets of the historical books extend 



AND PROPHECY IN ISRAEL. 249 

far beyond their political horizon, are characterized 
by definiteness and accuracy, enter into the more 
minute particulars, and are all, without distinction, 
strictly fulfilled." But the narratives containing them 
are in his esteem utterly untrustworthy. " They are, 
in the first place, a reflection and striking representa- 
tion of the religious belief of their authors, and only 
in the second place are they testimonies regarding the 
historical reality. This reality is nowhere to be found 
perfectly pure and unmixed in these narratives, in so 
far as they are anything more than dry chronicles ; it 
is always, though in a greater or less degree, colored 
by the subjective conviction of the narrator." " The 
representation given of the Prophets and prophecy in the 
historical narratives of the Old Testament is no testi- 
mony regarding, but is itself one of thefricits of the real 
Is raelitish prophecy" (p. 436). "While the prophet- 
ical historians sketched the past of Israel, they not 
only felt themselves compelled to labor for the reli- 
gious education of Israel, but they thought themselves 
also justified in making their description of Israel's 
fortunes subordinate and subservient to that object. 
The considerations which would restrain us from treat- 
ing history in such a manner, or would impede us in 
doing so, had for them no existence " (p. 443). In 
other words, Israelitish history is a pious fraud, con- 
cocted by the Prophets from first to last, and this in 
spite of the exalted respect which he professes for 
their character and work ! — and nothing whatever in 
it is to be credited but just what the critics tell us 
may be credited. Here is in a nutshell the principle 



250 KUENEN ON THE PROPHETS 

and the method of all Dr. Kuenen's critical processes 
and results. He blows his subjective soap-bubble to 
whatever size he may fancy, and dances it before his 
readers in its variegated beauty and apparent solidity 
and readiness to burst. 

It does not embarrass Dr. Kuenen in the slightest 
degree that the New Testament throughout " ascribes 
divine foreknowledge to the Israelitish Prophets." He 
very naively says (p. 448) : " Its judgment concerning 
the origin and nature of the prophetical expectations, 
and concerning their relation to the historical reality, 
may be regarded as diametrically opposed to ours." 
His elaborate attempt to show that the New Testa- 
ment writers are guilty of inaccuracies and mistakes 
in quoting from the Old Testament, and that they 
misunderstand and misinterpret it, merely proves what 
was superfluously clear beforehand, that their concep- 
tion of its meaning and spirit is radically different 
from his. Its chief value consists in the practical 
demonstration which it affords, that they who reject 
the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament, 
or any part of it, must by inevitable logical necessity 
reject likewise that of the New. 

Dr. Kuenen sees in prophecy simply a deduction 
from the Prophets' own religious convictions. Jeho- 
vah's purposes are inferred by them from their thor- 
ough persuasion of His inflexible righteousness and 
His sovereign choice of Israel to be His people on the 
one hand, and the judgment which they entertain of 
Israel's existing moral state or the character and con- 
duct of Gentile nations on the other. Hence "the 



AND PROrHECY IN ISRAEL. 25 I 

prophetical prediction of the future " is, as he states it 
(p. 359), the necessarily incorrect conclusion drawn 
from premises which themselves were only half cor- 
rect." This naturalistic hypothesis falls with the 
failure to prove the non-accomplishment of the pre- 
dictions of the Prophets. If, as is really the case, 
what they have foretold has unerringly come to pass, 
prophecy is thereby shown to be the word, not of him 
who knows not what a day may bring forth, but of 
Him who "declareth the end from the beginning." It 
is the word, not of man, but of God. And it is plainly 
futile to attempt to account for it on natural princi- 
ples — as, for example, that Jeremiah's strong faith 
wrought upon the exiles, and their faith wrought upon 
Cyrus, who by a lucky chance appeared just at the 
right time and became the conqueror of Babylon 
(p. 315), and thus brought about the return from cap- 
tivity after seventy years ; or Isaiah by his faith per- 
suaded Hezekiah and his people to persevere in their 
resistance to Sennacherib until fortunately the plague 
swept off his army (p. 298). On this principle such a 
chapter of accidents would be required to save the 
credit of the Prophets as would involve that very 
supernatural intervention that the hypothesis was in- 
vented to escape ; and that, too, in a form far more 
incredible than the simple faith of ages, that " proph- 
ecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but 
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost." 



DR. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE 
PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 



DR. W. ROBERTSON SMITH ON THE 
PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 1 

TI 7E have read this second volume of Dr. Robert- 
^ * son Smith with disappointment and pain. 
The announcement of a fresh course of lectures 
from his vigorous and graphic pen, in which the 
Prophets of Israel were to be treated in relation to 
their own times, naturally awakened high expec- 
tations. It would have been unreasonable to de- 
mand in all his productions an equal measure of the 
literary charm that attached in such an extraor- 
dinary degree to " The Old Testament in the Jewish 
Church ; " in which even unprofessional readers 
found the dry details of technical discussion invested 
with the interest of an exciting story, as they were 
led by a connected argument through the mazes of 
Biblical criticism, from the state of the text to the age 
of the Pentateuch. And it need occasion no sur- 
prise that his conclusions respecting the Prophets 
cannot be accepted by those who have been con- 
strained to dissent from his views previously ex- 

1 The Prophets of Israel, and their Place in History to the close 
of the eighth century b. c. Eight Lectures by W. Robertson Smith, 
LL. D. Edinburgh, 1882. 



256 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

pressed. But we confess that we were not pre- 
pared for the extremely low estimate here put 
upon the religion ,of Israel and the teaching of the 
Prophets. 

With the devout spirit that breathed in the former 
work there seemed to be joined a high appreciation 
of the Old Testament revelation and of Old Testa- 
ment saints, and particularly the Prophets as the ad- 
vocates of a spiritual in opposition to a ritual or 
materialistic worship. And with this the critical 
conclusions respecting Deuteronomy and the Levi- 
tical law were not necessarily inconsistent. Though 
it was alleged that the Pentateuchal Law did not pro- 
ceed directly from Moses, it was held to be the work 
of other servants of God/ and to have been given to 
Israel in successive portions at later periods of time. 
The date was altered but the contents remained the 
same, and there was no apparent disposition to under- 
rate their meaning or value. Tfris might seem rather 
to be enhanced by the assumption that such laws 
were insupposable in the infancy of the nation and 
at the outset of God's dealings with Israel, and that 
they must mark subsequent epochs in the divinely 
guided history. The Prophets, however, suffer much 
more severely at his hands. They are with some ex- 
ceptions allowed to stand each in his own proper 
date, but the contents of their teaching are evapo- 
rated in the crucible of the new hypothesis until an 
almost impalpable residuum of religious truth is all 
that is left ; and even this was inaccurately conceived 
by the Prophets, who are, moreover, irreconcilably 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 257 

at variance with one another in their statements of it. 
And this is commended to us as the revelation of 
God through the Prophets. 

We admit without hesitation that we can no 
more determine a priori what a revelation from God 
must contain as a whole, or in any of its parts, than 
we can prescribe how the world should be made. 
The Most High must always act worthily of Himself 
and suitably to the end which He has in view. But 
we learn what He judged it fit to do by ascertaining 
what, in actual fact, He has done. It is by the direct 
study of the Scriptures themselves, and of each sepa- 
rate portion of them by itself, — in the declarations 
there made and the phenomena exhibited, — not by 
a priori reasonings, that we are to discover in what 
sense the Scriptures are the Word of God and what 
revelations He has therein made to us. And in in- 
terpreting Scripture we must not make it square with 
our notions of what it ought to be, but simply inquire 
what it actually is. There must, we insist, be a 
thoroughly unbiassed and candid interpretation of its 
facts and contents. If force must not be put upon 
it to bring forth spiritual mysteries which it does not 
contain, or to find in its earlier sections disclosures 
which were reserved for a later time, neither must it, 
on the other hand, be pared down to the level of what 
some philosophical theory of religious development 
may be willing to allow. 

The human element in Scripture, of which we hear 
so much at the present time, is not to be discarded 
or explained away. It has its importance and value 



258 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

for the proper understanding and due appreciation of 
the sacred volume. But neither is the divine char- 
acter of Scripture to be depreciated or set aside. 
No theory of inspiration or of non-inspiration can be 
accepted, as the final truth upon this subject, which 
cannot abide the most searching examination in the 
light of all the facts bearing on the case. Any in- 
vestigations which enter more deeply into this ques- 
tion or elicit any fresh data for its determination are 
to be welcomed. Every advance made toward a 
correct appreciation of any of the factors which have 
contributed to the formation of the Bible, or any of 
its books, is a positive gain, whatever may have been 
the motive or immediate aim of those by whom it is 
brought out. And particularly it is a hopeful sign 
if increased, attention is directed to the persons of the 
Prophets and the times in which they lived, the con- 
ceptions which then prevailed, the ordinary life of 
the people, the questions which agitated men's 
minds, the emergencies which called for prophetic 
interference, and what was from time to time at- 
tempted or accomplished . by it. Assuredly we 
shall decline no aid in these matters even from 
Wellhausen, Kuenen, or Duhm, especially as their 
views are interpreted for us in the lucid periods of 
Dr. Robertson Smith or modified into more accepta- 
ble forms by his independent reflections. 

We have no quarrel with our author for the ex- 
tent to which he is disposed to trace the person- 
ality of the Prophets in their several messages. 
This does not conflict in the slightest degree with the 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 259 

common doctrine of inspiration. The entire person 
of the Prophet was God's organ in making known 
His will. His native endowments, the experiences of 
his life, all that contributed to form his character, to 
determine or deepen his convictions, to shape his 
style of thought or action, in fine to make him 
what he was, was a part of his providential training 
for his work. The more thoroughly we know him 
as a man, the better we can appreciate his adaptation 
as a Prophet to his own age and to his own country- 
men. The vexed question respecting Hosea's mar- 
riage, which has been a fruitful source of disputation 
from the days of Jerome, may never be settled to 
universal satisfaction. But there is certainly much 
that is attractive in the idea (pp. 178 ff.) that the 
Prophet was first taught the lesson by a bitter domes- 
tic experience, which he subsequently labored to 
impress upon the transgressing people, and that the 
yearnings of his- own affectionate heart, toward one 
who had so basely wronged him, led him up to his 
conception of the persistent love of God to idolatrous 
Israel, and gave him a clearer insight into His provi- 
dential dealings with His people. And we have in 
the book of Habakkuk a remarkably clear instance of 
the wrestling conflict of which revelations were born : 
the inward struggle with great moral problems that 
clamored for solution, the mental process by which the 
strife was calmed and assured conviction attained, — 
and distinguished from this, and additional to it, the 
divine communication for which the mind was ante- 
cedently prepared. 



260 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Dr. Robertson Smith expresses his dissent (p. 9) 
from the views of those who 

" maintain that there was no specific difference between 
the growth of divine truth in Israel and the growth of truth 
among other nations. The Prophets who were the organs of 
God's teaching in Israel appear to them to stand on the 
same line with the other great teachers of mankind, who 
were also searchers after truth and received it as a gift from 
God. . . The practical point, in all controversy as to the dis- 
tinctive character of the revelation of God to Israel, regards 
the place of Scripture as the permanent rule of faith and the 
sufficient and unfailing guide in all our religious life. When 
we say that God dealt with Israel in the way of special revel- 
ation, and crowned His dealings by personally manifesting all 
His grace and truth in Christ Jesus the incarnate Word, we 
mean that the Bible contains within itself a perfect picture 
of God's gracious relations with man, and that we have no 
need to go outside of the Bible history to learn anything of 
God and His saving will towards us, — that the whole growth 
of the true religion up to its perfect fulness is set before us 
in the record of God's dealings with Israel, culminating in 
the manifestion of Jesus Christ. There can be no question 
that Jesus Himself held this view, and we cannot depart 
from it without making Him an imperfect teacher and an 
imperfect Saviour. Yet history has not taught us that there 
is anything in true religion to add to the New Testament. 
We still stand in the nineteenth century where He stood in 
the first; or rather He stands as' high above us as He did 
above his disciples — the perfect Master, the Supreme Head 
of the fellowship of all true religion " (pp. 10, 11). 

The imperfect knowledge of God reached by Gen- 
tile nations, the lack of any solid and continuous pro- 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 26 1 

gress in religious things among them, and the decay 
of their noblest religions, as contrasted with the steady 
progress in the knowledge of God given to Israel, 
until it " merged in the perfect religion of Christ which 
still satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of mankind," 
is urged in proof that the revelation of the Old and 
New Testaments may fairly claim to be the revelation 
of God to men in a special and absolute sense 
(p. 14). "It is not necessary," he adds, " to encum- 
ber the argument by comparing the way in which 
individual divine communications were given to Israel, 
with the way in which the highest thinkers of other 
nations came to grasp something of spiritual truth ; " 
that is, as we understand him, it is undesirable to 
raise the question whether Hebrew Prophets ascer- 
tained the truth in any such way as made them au- 
thoritative teachers of the will of God, and exempted 
them from errors in its communication. 1 

1 On page 82 the Doctor draws a distinction between prophets 
and uninspired preachers, which might seem, at first sight, to be iden- 
tical with the commonly received doctrine on this subject. "Jehovah 
did not first give a complete theoretical knowledge of Himself and 
then raise up prophets to enforce the application of the theoretical 
scheme in particular circumstances. That would not have required 
a prophet ; it would have been no more than is still done by unin- 
spired preachers. The place of the prophet is in a religious crisis, 
where the ordinary interpretation of acknowledged principles breaks 
down, where it is necessary to go back, not to received doctrine, but 
to Jehovah Himself. The word of Jehovah, through the prophet, 
is properly a declaration of what Jehovah, as the personal King of 
Israel, commands in this particular crisis ; and it is spoken with au- 
thority, not as an inference from previous revelation, but as the direct 
expression of the character and will of a personal God, who has 
made Himself personally audible in the prophet's soul." A careful 



262 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Now this may, in the connection, simply refer to 
the place that the supernatural claims of the Prophets 
should hold in an apologetical argument. In endeav- 
oring to force conviction on unbelievers, it might not 
be wise to bring the supernatural evidences of our 
religion to the front, and engage in a disputation 
upon inspiration and infallibility in the first instance. 
As he says (p. 16) : " The miraculous circumstances 
of its promulgation need not be used as the first 
proof of its truth, but must rather be regarded as the 
inseparable accompaniments of a revelation which 
bears the historical stamp of reality." There is un- 
questionably reason and sound sense is this. If the 
measureless superiority of the religion of the Bible 
over any Gentile system be first established by pal- 
pable and undeniable considerations, it may be 
hoped that the minds of opposers will thus be better 
prepared to admit the evidence of its supernatural 
origin. It is as the accompaniment and the attesta- 
tion of revealed truth, and not as isolated prodigies, 
that miracles are convincing. 

But when we consider the whole drift of the Lec- 
tures which are thus prefaced, we think that no injus- 

inspection of these words, however, shows with what, care they have 
been selected. God may "make Himself personally audible in the 
prophet's soul " simply as He does in the divine illumination enjoyed 
by all truly pious men. Their devout intercourse with God leads to 
an intimate acquaintance with His character, and an instinctive appre- 
hension of what His will must be in any given case. And thus the 
thought will not be excluded that, along with " the word of Jehovah 
through the prophet," there may be uttered much that savors of hu- 
man weakness and error. And that this is his real meaning appears 
from the entire tenor of the volume. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 263 

tice is done the distinguished lecturer by surmising 
that he meant more than appears upon the surface. 
If he can suggest no other reason for the sacredness 
of Sinai than (p. 34)^ " The storm that broke on the 
mountains of Sinai, and rolled across the desert in fer- 
tilizing showers, made the godhead of Jehovah real, " 
and if the teachings of the Prophets were such as he 
in extenso represents them to be, we cannot help sus- 
pecting that his distrust of the supernatural facts of 
the Bible contributed to his reluctance to lay too 
much stress upon them. 

And when he proposes (p. 16) to place the defenders 
of revelation on such vantage-ground that they " need 
no longer be afraid to allow free discussion of the de- 
tails of its history," — that " they can afford to meet 
every candid inquirer on the fair field of history, and 
to form their judgment on the actual course of revela- 
tion by the ordinary methods of historical investi- 
gation," — the implication seems to be that a fair 
application of the ordinary methods of historical in- 
vestigation would seriously alter the views commonly 
entertained respecting the actual course of revela- 
tion; and this it is the object of the volume before 
us to establish in regard to the Prophets. 

It informs us, for instance, that the prophet Elijah 
was indifferent to the worship of the golden calves 
(p. 109). It seems that Hosea was the first to dis- 
cover that there was anything wrong in this form of 
idolatry. 

" There is no feature in Hosea's prophecy which distin- 
guishes him from earlier Prophets so sharply as his attitude 



264 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

to the golden calves, the local symbols of Jehovah adored in 
the Northern sanctuaries. Elijah and Elisha had no quarrel 
with the traditional worship of their nation. Even Amos 
never speaks in condemnation of the calves" (p. 175). . . . 
" The revolution inaugurated by Elijah and Elisha appealed 
to the conservatism of the nation. It was followed therefore 
by no attempt to remodel the traditional forms of Jehovah's 
worship, which continued essentially as they had been since 
the time of the Judges. 1 The golden calves remained undis- 

1 In the connection this can have no other meaning than that the 
sanctuary of the golden calf at Dan was identical with the idolatrous 
shrine founded there by the Danites (Judg. xviii. 30, 31). But the 
duration of the latter is expressly limited to " the time that the house 
of God was in Shiloh ; " this expired with the capture of the Ark by 
the Philistines. This expression defines the phrase in ver. 30, " the 
day of the captivity of the land," which can, therefore, only refer to 
the overthrow which Israel then experienced, and which is spoken of 
in similar terms (Ps. lxxviii. 61 ff.). And if the narrative received its 
present form before the Assyrian Exile, which there is no good reason 
to question, the Philistine domination is the only event to which it 
can naturally be referred. There is, besides, no intimation that Mi- 
cah's graven image (Judg. xvii. 3) was in the form of a calf. There 
is no mention of calf-worship in Israel in the period of the Judges, or 
thenceforward until the time of Jeroboam, and there are no known 
facts from which its existence can be inferred. The establishment of 
the idolatrous worship at Bethel and Dan is explicitly referred to Jero- 
boam and the circumstances of its institution narrated in detail, I. Kings 
xii. 28, 29. These point (ver. 2) to Egypt as its source, which was 
likewise the case in the only previous instance of it in the whole his- 
tory of the people — namely, the trespass of Aaron in the Wilderness 
(Ex. xxxii. 4). The allegation (p. 38) that " in many places a priesthood, 
claiming kinship with Moses, administered the sacred oracle as his 
successors," is a very broad statement considering its narrow basis of 
fact. If the conjecture be correct that HtercB suspensce form no part 
of the text, then "Manasseh" (Judg. xviii. 30) should read 
"Moses," and there would be proof of " a priesthood claiming kin- 
ship with Moses," in one idolatrous sanctuary. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 265 

turbed, though they were plainly out of place in the worship 
of a Deity who had so markedly separated Himself from the 
gods of the nations " (p. 96). 

Such statements cannot be characterized otherwise 
than as an atrocious misrepresentation. If there is 
any one thing of which Jehovah expresses His utter 
abhorrence everywhere throughout the Scriptures, it 
is the practice of idolatry in whatever form ; and that 
a true prophet of the Lord, jealous as Elijah was for 
His name and worship in a time of widespread apos- 
tasy, and to whose divine commission such signal 
attestations were given by the Lord Himself, could 
possibly have been " indifferent " to what was so 
grossly dishonoring to God, or, as it is mildly put in 
the passage above cited, " plainly out of place " in His 
worship, is absolutely beyond belief. The earlier 
Prophets were precisely of the same mind with Hosea 
in respect to the golden calves. Ahijah of Shiloh, in 
the tribe of Ephraim, who had foreshown to Jero- 
boam his elevation to the throne (i. Kings xi. 29 ff.), 
denounced his sin in the strongest terms (xiv. 9). 
So did the man of God who came from Judah to 
prophesy against Jeroboam's altar (xiii. 2), and whose 
words were reaffirmed even by the lying prophet of 
Bethel (ver. 32). And Jehu, the son of Hanani, 
uttered a like message of denunciation to Baasha for 
walking in the way of Jeroboam (xvi. 1, 2). Jehosha- 
phat's distrust of the four hundred prophets who 
professed to declare to Ahab the will of the LORD, 
and his insisting on a prophet of Jehovah besides, 
shows what he thought of the worship of the calves ; 



266 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

and when Micaiah was summoned, he distinctly 
charged his antagonists with speaking under the in- 
fluence of a lying spirit (i. Kings xxii). 1 

Unless therefore Dr. Robertson Smith is prepared 
to deny with Kuenen that any dependence is to be 
put upon predictions recorded in the historical books, 
the Prophets did lift up their voice against the wor- 
ship of the calves from the very beginning. And 
even though these particular narratives be discredited 
the fact remains ; for such stories could not have 
arisen, and gained credence, unless they correctly 
represented the known attitude of the LORD'S true 
Prophets. 

We are told (p. 109) that the histories of Elijah 
and Elisha, as " every one can see," are ancient and 
distinct documents, which represent an earlier belief 
than the Books of Kings in which they have been 
incorporated. 2 It is nevertheless plain that the au- 
thor of Kings, who never lets slip an opportunity to 
express his detestation of the worship of the calves, 
could not have suspected Elijah or Elisha of com- 
plicity with it, or he would hot have failed to enter 
his dissent (11. Kings xvii. 13). If the reformation 

1 According to Wellhausen (p. 251 of his edition of Bleek's Ein- 
leitung) this account, as well as that in II. Kings iii., originated in the 
kingdom of Samaria. We may consequently presume that it is not 
colored to the prejudice of the national worship of the Ten Tribes. 

2 And p. 116: "The story of Elijah and Elisha clearly took shape 
in the Northern Kingdom ; it is told by a narrator, who is full of per- 
sonal interest in the affairs of Ephraim, and has no idea of criticising 
Elijah's work, as the Judaean editor criticises the whole history of the 
North, by constant reference to the schismatical character of the 
Northern sanctuaries." 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 267 

undertaken by Elijah aimed at nothing more than 
was accomplished by Jehu, it would have been spoken 
of in similar terms (11. Kings x. 28, 29). These Lec- 
tures, however, assert that Elijah's zeal was not directed 
against the golden calves, which were recognized 
symbols of Jehovah, but simply against the service of 
Baal; though " in building and endowing a temple 
for his wife, Ahab did no more than Solomon had 
done without exciting much opposition on the part 
of his people." Perhaps the Doctor forgets that on 
this very account Solomon was threatened with the 
loss of his kingdom (1. Kings xi. 33), and the danger 
was sufficiently formidable to lead him to seek the 
life of Jeroboam (ver. 40). Ahab, it seems, had no 
idea that he was breaking the first commandment. 
" Even if we are to suppose that practical religious 
questions were expressly referred to the words of this 
precept, it would not have been difficult to interpret 
them in a sense that meant only that no other God 
should have the pre-eminence over Israel's king." If 
this be so, we do not see why a like latitude of inter- 
pretation might not have been applied to Deut. xii. 5, 
and " the place which the Lord shall choose " have 
been understood to mean any place whatever where 
divine worship was established. Jeroboam may not 
have thought himself guilty of any infraction of this 
law, nor any other adherent of the alleged " local 
sanctuaries." What then becomes of the argument 
for the non-existence of Deuteronomy, drawn from 
the neglect of this fundamental statute ? It was 
simply set aside by a mistaken exegesis. 



268 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Elijah's austere opposition to "the god of a friendly 
state " was an advance upon all previous practice. 

" Hitherto all Israel's interest in Jehovah had had practical 
reference to His contests with the gods of hostile nations, 
and it was one thing to worship deities who were felt to be 
Jehovah's rivals and foes, and quite another thing to allow 
some recognition to the deity of an allied race. But Elijah 
saw deeper into the true character of the God of Israel. 
Where He was worshipped no other god could be acknowl- 
edged in any sense. This was a proposition of tremendous 
practical issues. It really involved the political isolation of 
the nation ; for, as things then stood, it was impossible to 
have friendship and alliance with other peoples if their gods 
were proscribed in Israel's land. It is not strange that Ahab, 
as a politician, fought with all his might against such a view ; 
for it contained more than the germ of that antagonism be- 
tween Israel and all the rest of mankind which made the Jews 
appear to the Roman historian as the enemies of the human 
race, and brought upon them an unbroken succession of po- 
litical misfortunes, and the ultimate loss of all place among 
the nations " (p. 80) . " From the point of view of national 
politics, the fall of Ahab was a step in the downfall of Israel. 
... In this respect, the work of Elijah foreshadows that of 
the Prophets of Judah, who in like manner had no small part 
in breaking up the political life of the kingdom" (p. 78). 

From all this it may be inferred that Ahab was a 
more sagacious statesman, even if he was not a bet- 
ter man, than Elijah ; and, while religion might have 
suffered, the political prosperity of Israel and of Ju- 
dah would have been greater if Elijah and the 
Prophets had not interfered as they did. It was not 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 269 

without reason, then, that Ahab accosted the Tishbite 
as the Troubler of Israel (1. Kings xviii. 17). This 
libel upon the Prophets, and apology for impious 
transgressors and persecutors, which is continued 
ad nauseam, overlooks the cardinal fact that virtue 
and piety, and the blessing of Jehovah, are the true 
foundations of national welfare. It was the loss of 
these, far more than the want of foreign alliances or 
even the encroachments of the great empires, which 
led to Israel's downfall. 

Elijah's ministry was exercised in a great crisis. 
The idolatrous worship of Jehovah established by 
Jeroboam was not enough for Ahab ; he openly in- 
troduced the worship of Baal, and sought to make it 
the religion of the state (1. Kings xvi. 31-33). It 
may be true that he did not intend to give up the 
service of Jehovah (p. 48) as this was represented 
by the golden calves ; but the Lord's altars were 
thrown down, and His true Prophets slain with the 
sword (xix. 14), or forced to hide themselves in caves 
(xviii. 13). In this state of things, when the alter- 
native was between Jehovah and Baal, rather than be- 
tween the pure and the corrupted service of Jehovah, 
it need not surprise us if the golden calves are not 
more directly and pointedly alluded to. If some 
one were to place in our hands a plea for the Chris- 
tian religion, issued when Atheism and ungodliness 
were rampant in the French Revolution, would it ever 
enter our minds to charge its author with " indiffer- 
ence " to the various corruptions which have defaced 
Christianity, because these were not discussed in the 



270 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

pamphlet? Elijah shows plainly enough where he 
stood, and to what he would recall the people. He 
never said or did anything which can be tortured into 
approval of the golden calves. He never sacrificed 
before them himself, nor urged others to do so. His 
one great sacrifice, designed to demonstrate to the 
people of the Ten Tribes the deity of Jehovah, was 
offered, not at Bethel 1 nor at Dan, but at Carmel. 
(See above, p. 164.) He addressed Jehovah as " the 
God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel " (1. Kings 
xviii. 36). Now we are told (p. 117) that the narra- 
tives of the Patriarchs, as we possess them, are for 
the most part, gathered about the " Northern sanc- 
tuaries," and were there constantly rehearsed. They 
must therefore correctly represent the ideas which 
Elijah and his countrymen had of their ancestors, 
and of the great object of their worship. From them 
we learn that Jehovah was to the Patriarchs " the 
Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth " 
(Gen. xiv. 22, xxiv. 3), the almighty (xvii. 1) and 
everlasting God (xxi. 33), who has all nature under 
His control (xlix. 25), whose dwelling is in heaven 
(xix. 24, xxviii. 12, 13), who, when He manifested 

1 We subjoin here some characteristic specimens of Wellhausen's 
fairness in statement. He speaks (Bleek's Einleitung, p. 246) of 
Elijah as fleeing for his life " to the ancient sanctuary of Beersheba, 
in southern Judah, which was much frequented likewise by Israel," 
because he left his servant at that most southern point of the coun- 
try, on his way to Sinai (i. Kings xix. 3 ff.). Again (p. 245), " he was 
nourished by a widow, in the very land of Baal, thus showing not 
the least hatred to heathenism in itself." How far he sanctioned 
heathenism by that visit appears from xvii. 12, 14, 24. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 27 1 

Himself on earth, appeared in human form (xviii. 
1,2, xxxii. 24,30), and who was worshipped with- 
out any idolatrous symbols (xxxv. 2 ; comp. xxxi. 

19.30). 

Jehovah was to Elijah not only supreme but exclu- 
sive in his godhead (1. Kings xviii. 21, 24). It is 
not merely that " there was no room for two gods in 
the land" (p. 76). Elijah makes no such limitation; 
to his mind there could be but one God in existence. 
Such a conception of God does not consist with 
image-worship, which is, moreover, confirmed by his 
ridicule of the senselessness and vanity of idolatry 
(ver. 27). The twelve stones of the altar (ver. 31) 
show that he did not recognize the rightfulness of 
the schism, nor, consequently, of the apostasy to the 
worship of the calves, which was one of its direst 
fruits. But he utters his mind in a more direct and 
positive manner, when he declares to Ahab, in the 
name of Jehovah, " I will make thine house like the 
house of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and like 
the house of Baasha, the son of Ahijah." The 
whole passage (xxi. 21-24) is a manifest repetition 
of the language of preceding Prophets ( xiv. 10, n, 
xvi. 2-4), and the reference to the crime of the golden 
calves is unmistakable. They are classed along with 
serving Baal, as similarly offensive to Jehovah, and 
incurring a similar doom. It is confessed in these 
Lectures (p. 99) that Hosea ii. 5, 8, 13 means by 
Baalim " the local manifestations of Jehovah under 
the form of the golden calves." Ahijah expressly 
calls them "other gods" (I. Kings xiv. 9). We are 



272 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

accordingly justified in assuming, that, when Elijah 
charges both Ahaband his father's house (xviii. 18) 
with having " forsaken the commandments of the 
LORD and followed Baalim," he combines Ahab's 
service of Baal and Omri's service of the golden 
calves (xvi. 25, 26) under a common name. 1 The 
image worship nominally paid to Jehovah is an 
offence of like character with the open and declared 
worship of Baal, and finds in this its culmination. 
To the Prophet these are different grades of the 
same criminality, and, in standing up for Jehovah 
against Baal, he sets the pure worship of the one 
true God against them both alike. 

In answer to Elijah's complaint against Israel the 
LORD directs,him among other things (i. Kings xix. 15) 
to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, that his sword 
may inflict deserved punishment. Elisha subse- 
quently fulfils this commission (11. Kings viii. 12, 13) 
and Hazael executes the appointed vengeance, but not 
until the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz (x. 32, xiii. 3, 22), 
after the worship of Baal had been abolished and that of 
the calves re-established. Elijah therefore foretells a 
penalty to be inflicted on the worshippers of the 
golden calves ; and this is in direct response to his 
arraignment of Israel for having forsaken the cove- 
nant of Jehovah. This conclusion cannot be evaded 
even by the desperate expedient of assuming a vati- 
cinium ex eventu ; for the narrative, which puts this 

1 This is still the case if " thou," in this verse, is restricted to Ahab 
alone ; for his father's house, which worshipped the calves, is involved 
with him in " forsaking the commandments of the Lord." 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 273 

prophecy in the mouth of Elijah, is not from the 
fault-finding " Judaean editor" but "clearly took 
shape in the Northern Kingdom" (p. 116). It is 
correctly conceived therefore in the spirit of Elijah. 
And we are at liberty to conclude that it would have 
been quite in character for him to regard Hazael's 
invasion of Israel as a proper penalty for their for- 
saking Jehovah's covenant, though their adoration 
was paid not to Baal but to the golden calves. 

The significance of Elijah's journey of forty days and 
forty nights unto Horeb, the Mount of God (I. Kings 
xix. 8), is acknowledged in the Lectures (p. 83). 

" It is highly characteristic, for his whole standing, that in 
the greatest danger of his life, when the victory of Jehovah 
on Mount Carmel seemed to be all in vain, he retired to the 
desert of Sinai, to the ancient mountain of God. It was the 
God of the Exodus to whom he appealed, the ancient King 
of Israel in the journeyings through the Wilderness." " The 
God whom he declared to Israel was the God of Moses." 

It might be supposed from this that some satis- 
factory statement was about to be made respecting 
the conception of Jehovah, which this transaction 
involved. And we experience something like the 
sensation of suddenly dropping down from the 
sublime to the trivial, when we find that all this pre- 
lude has no further meaning than that Elijah, as a 
native of Gilead, had a proclivity for " the old no- 
madic life of the age of Moses," and was akin to the 
Nazarites, whose " vow to abstain from wine . . . 

was undoubtedly a religious protest against Canaan- 

18 



2 74 DR, ROBERTSON SMITH 

ite civilization in favor of the simple life of ancient 
times." 

We press the question, however: What notions 
were entertained of the God of Moses, whom Elijah 
by this significant action so plainly declares to be 
his God likewise? A few quotations will show us the 
point of view from which this question is regarded 
by Dr. Robertson Smith. He tells us (p. 70) that 
the difference between Jehovah and other gods 

" was not defined once for all in a theological dogma, but 
made itself felt in the attitude which Jehovah actually took up 
towards Israel in historical dealings with His nation." 

" The current ideas of the Hebrews about unseen things 
were mainly the common stock of the Semitic peoples, and 
nothing is more certain than that neither Moses nor Samuel 
gave Israel any new system of metaphysical theology. In 
matters of thought as well as of practice, the new revelation 
of Jehovah's power and love, given through Moses, or rather 
given in actual saving deeds of Jehovah which Moses taught 
the people to understand, involved no sudden and absolute 
break with the past, or with the traditions of the past com- 
mon to Israel with kindred nations. Its epoch-making im- 
portance lay in quite another direction — in the introduction 
into Israel's historical life of a new personal factor — of 
Jehovah Himself as the God of Israel's salvation. ... It 
was from this personal experience of Jehovah's character, 
read in the actual history of His dealings with His peo- 
ple, that the great teachers of Israel learned, but learned 
by slow degrees, to lay down general propositions about 
divine things. To suppose that the Old Testament history 
began with a full scheme of doctrine, which the history only 
served to illustrate and enforce, is to invert the most general 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 275 

law of God's dealings with man, whether in the way of 
nature or of grace" (p. 58). "General propositions about 
divine things are not the basis but the outcome of such 
personal knowledge of Jehovah, just as in ordinary human 
life a general view of a man's character must be formed by 
observation of his attitude and action in a variety of special 
circumstances " (p. 82). 

There is much in all this that is true and vastly im- 
portant. Only God's revelation is arbitrarily limited 
to His manifestation of Himself in history, which 
men are to interpret with more or less divine assist- 
ance ; while His direct and positive communications 
in matters of faith and duty are altogether over- 
looked. The principles above stated are applied to 
the age of Moses with the following result, — all 
preceding revelations made to the Patriarchs being 
peremptorily set aside : — 

" It would seem that the memory of the God of the Hebrew 
fathers was little more than a dormant tradition 1 when Moses 

1 And yet the Doctor admits but a few lines before that he has 
no certainty on this point : " It is not easy to say how far the remem- 
brance of this God was a living power among the Hebrews." But 
then " historical investigation " has made sad havoc of the patriarchal 
narratives, many of which, we are told (p. 166), " there are the very 
strongest reasons for regarding as allegories of historical events sub- 
sequent to the settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan." So without 
further hesitation he sets them down as on the same level with their 
heathen neighbors of the same ancestral stock. "The Semitic nomads 
have many superstitions, but little religion." "Among the Israelites, 
as among the Arabs of the desert, whatever there was of habitual 
religious practice was probably connected with tribal or family super- 
stitions, such as the use of teraphim, a kind of household idols which 
long continued to keep their place in Hebrew homes." No doubt idol- 
atry was practised to some extent by Israelites in Egypt (Josh. xxiv. 



276 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

began his work" (p. 2>Z) • When Jehovah delivered them from 
the oppression of Egypt, "the new circumstances of Israel 
. . . created a multitude of new questions. On these Moses 
had to decide, and he sought the decision from Jehovah, 
whose Ark now led the march of Israel" (p. 36). From 
these solitary facts the lecturer deduces (p. 40) " the essen- 
tial difference between Jehovah and the Baalim, which had 
to be preserved amidst all changes of circumstances if Je- 
hovah was still to maintain his individuality. In the first 
place . . . Jehovah represented a principle of national unity, 
while the worship of the Baalim was split into a multitude of 
local cults without national significance." 1 Further, "Je- 

14 ; Ezek. xx, 7, 8, xxiii. 3) ; but it is an incredible assumption that 
there was no true piety surviving among them, and that all correct 
knowledge of God had been obliterated or lost. And as to. the con- 
nection of the teraphim with Hebrew homes, the evidence is scanty 
and exceptional. ' Rachel stole her father's teraphim, but without 
Jacob's privity (Gen. xxxi. 19, 32) ; and he required his household to 
put away everything of the kind (xxxv. 2). Michal, Saul's daughter, 
had teraphim in her house (1. Sam. xix. 16) ; but in what esteem they 
were held appears from Samuel's classing teraphim with witchcraft 
and rebellion (xv. 23) ; and in every remaining passage in which 
teraphim are spoken of, they are associated with Open and confessed 
idolatry. Possibly there may be a few persons in Scotland who have 
a superstitious belief in witches ; but what would be thought of a 
man who should gravely adduce this as a fact reflecting the general 
religious condition of that country, or as indicating the amount of 
religious knowledge possessed by the people ? 

1 If this be so we submit that, upon the Doctor's own showing, it 
is naturally to be expected that Moses would issue just such a com- 
mand as that in Ueut. xii. 5. Later events may have interfered with . 
its strict observance. But if " the religion of Jehovah . . . lost the 
best part of its original meaning when divorced from the idea of na- 
tional unity" (p. 47), it would have been an unaccountable oversight 
in Moses not to have enjoined the perpetuation of that unity of the 
Sanctuary which was so essential, and which it is confessed was main- 
tained in the Wilderness and during the Conquest. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 2 J J 

hovah represented to Israel two of the greatest blessings that 
any people can enjoy. . . . The first of these was liberty, for 
it was Jehovah that brought Israel forth from the house of 
bondage ; the second was law, justice, and the moral order 
of society, for from the days of Moses the mouth of Jeho- 
vah was the one fountain of judgment. So in the Ten Words, 
the fundamental document of the religion of the Old Testa- 
ment, the claim of Jehovah to the exclusive worship of Israel 
is based on the deliverance that made Israel a free people, 
and issues in the great laws of social morality." 

But if the Ten Words are Mosaic, and may be 
taken into the account in estimating the knowledge of 
God which was then possessed, they imply a concep- 
tion of Him vastly beyond the meagre and purely 
political ideas suggested in these Lectures. Dr. Rob- 
ertson Smith does not tell us just what he thinks of 
the Ten Words. From the manner in which they are 
here referred to, it might be taken for granted that he 
ascribed them to the period of the Exodus. 1 But the 

1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church " (p. 331) seems to im- 
pute the writing of the Ten Words to Moses, and (p. 334) plainly 
fixes them in the life of the great legislator. The Doctor there says: 
" The events of Sinai, and the establishment of the covenant on the 
basis of the Ten Words, did not cut short this kind of Torah," i. e. 
Moses' judging "his contemporaries by bringing individual hard 
cases before Jehovah for decision." This can only be reconciled with 
what he represents to be the Mosaic idea of God by assuming that 
the Ten Words of Moses were very different from the Ten Command- 
ments as - we now possess them. But of this he gives us no hint. 

And there are other cases in which we are left in some uncertainty 
as to the Doctor's precise meaning. Thus in the volume before us 
(p. 34) he speaks of Jehovah as having " wrought the great deliver- 
ance at the Red Sea ; " and he finds in the Exodus " a marvellous dis- 
play of Jehovah's saving strength . . . when the proud waters rolled 



278 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

contents of the first table are strangely overlooked. 
And he seems quite oblivious of any connection be- 
tween Mount Sinai and the giving of the Ten Com- 
mandments. God's " kingly seat on earth " he tells 
us (p. 34) was by " an ancient tradition placed on 
Mount Sinai, which still appears in the Song of Deb- 
orah as the place from which the divine majesty goes 
forth in thunder-storm and rain to bring victory to 
Israel; " and (p. 43) "in the Song of Deborah, Je- 

between the Hebrews and the shattered power of the Egyptians." 
We would never have dreamed that this could mean less than the mir- 
aculous interference which this transaction has always denoted to the 
great mass of the readers of Scripture, were it not that in the very 
same connection the Lord's descent upon Sinai is frittered away to a 
thunder-storm ; and in all the discussion about Elijah the supernatural 
events in his life are not once alluded to. The Doctor is ordinarily 
so frank in the statement of his views, even the most startling, that 
we can imagine no motive for concealment here, much less for the em- 
ployment of misleading phrases. Perhaps we do him injustice by the 
suggestion, but this unwonted reticence inclines us to suspect some 
remaining hesitation in his own mind respecting the ultimate issue of 
" historical investigation " into these matters, and a disinclination to 
drift altogether away from long-cherished traditional opinions until 
the last strand of the cable is parted. 

Wellhausen, however, has no hesitation on this point. We quote 
from his article " Israel," in the Encyclopedia Britannica, (vol. xiii. p. 
397), in which he says of Moses and the Exodus : " It was not through 
any merit of his that the undertaking (of which he was the soul) pros- 
pered as it did ; his design was aided in a wholly unlooked-for way, by 
a marvellous occurrence quite beyond his control, and which no saga- 
city could possibly have foreseen. One whom the wind and sea obeyed 
had given him His aid. Behind him stood One higher than he, whose 
spirit wrought in him and whose arm wrought for him. ... It was 
Jehovah. Alike what was done by the deliberate purpose of Moses 
and what was done without any human contrivance by nature and by 
accident came to be regarded in one great totality as the doing of 
Jehovah for Israel." 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 279 

hovah has not yet a fixed seat in the land of Canaan, 
but goes forth from Sinai to help His people in their 
distress." It might with precisely the same propriety 
be inferred from Hab. iii. 3, that Jehovah had not a 
fixed seat in Canaan down to the time of Habakkuk, 
but still came forth from the desert for the succor of 
His people. All the sacredness of Sinai is in conse- 
quence of the revelations which Jehovah there made 
of Himself to Moses (Ex. iii. 2) and to Israel. No 
trace is to be found of any prior hallowing of the 
place, or of its being hallowed for any other reason. 
In the narrative of the first of the divine manifesta- 
tions granted there, Horeb is called "the mountain of 
God" (Ex. iii. 1 ; comp. iv. 27) by anticipation; just 
as Eben-ezer is spoken of (1. Sam. iv. 1) before it re- 
ceived that name (vii. 12), or as we might say that 
the Indians wandered along the Hudson or over 
Mount Washington before America was visited by 
Europeans. 

Every allusion to Sinai or to Horeb in the Old 
Testament is linked with the marvellous occurrences 
recorded at length in Ex. xix., xx., and is a fresh con- 
firmation of their truth. The Song of Deborah cele- 
brates the victory over Sisera by Him who once met 
Israel at Sinai with cloud and tempest, while the 
earth trembled and the mountain shook (Judg. v. 
4, 5 ; comp. Ps. lxviii. 8, 17). The blessing of Moses 
(Deut. xxxiii.) — though its genuineness is denied in 
the face of the positive declaration in ver. 1, corrobo- 
rated as this is by internal evidence — yet " shows us 
better," we are told (p. 118), "than any other part 



280 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

of Scripture how thoughtful and godly men of the 
Northern Kingdom understood the religion of Je- 
hovah." Confessedly, then, it shows us the belief 
entertained by Elijah that God revealed Himself to 
Israel at Sinai, in brilliant splendor, and there gave 
them His Law through the instrumentality of Moses 
(vers. 2 - 5 ; comp. Hab. iii. 3, 4 ; Neh, ix. 13 ; Mai. iv. 
4.) And the Prophet's visit to Horeb was not merely 
to some traditional seat of the godhead, but to the 
place where Jehovah gave His Law to Israel in awful 
magnificence, and where He established that covenant 
with them which the children of Israel had now so 
basely forsaken. 

Now of this Law — that in actual fact and in the 
belief of Elijah (which is the point of especial conse- 
quence to us just now) was given at Sinai — the 
Decalogue must undoubtedly have been a part. It is 
the Ten Commandments which are said to have been 
spoken by the mouth of God amid the grand dis- 
plays which betokened His presence on the moun- 
tain. And the Ark, which is admitted to be as old 
as the time of Moses 1 (pp. 36, 43), contained the 

1 Even Wellhausen owns (article " Israel," Encyclopedia Britatinica, 
vol. xiii. p. 398) that " Jehovah's chief, perhaps in the time of 
Moses His only, sanctuary was with the so-called Ark of the Cove- 
nant." So Kuenen (" Religion of Israel," vol. i. p. 289) : " Scarcely 
any tradition of Hebrew antiquity is better guaranteed than that which 
derives the Ark of Jahveh from the lawgiver himself." The atrocious 
manner in which the latter critic is capable of perverting history may 
be illustrated by his utterly baseless substitution of an image of the 
Deity, or a fetich, for the tables of the law (p. 233) : " Was the Ark 
empty, or did it contain a stone — Jahveh's real abode, of which the Ark 
was only the repository. This we do not know, although the latter 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 28 1 

tables of stone on which the Ten Words were written 
(Ex. xxxiv. 28, xl. 20; Deut. x. 4, 5 ; 1. Kings viii. 9, 
21), and was hence called the Ark of the Testimony 
(Ex. xxv. 21, 22) and the Ark of the Covenant 
(Judg. xx. 27). The existence of this Ark is a pal- 
pable evidence, which cannot be set aside, of the an- 
tiquity of the commandments inscribed on these 
tables. If anything whatever is known of the Mosaic 
age, it is certainly known that the Ten Command- 
ments were given then. There is nothing more surely 
accredited than this, whether by historical testimony 
or by monumental evidence. 

Wellhausen, however, is keen-sighted enough to 
perceive that if the antiquity of the Ten Command- 
ments is allowed, his whole critical hypothesis is un- 
dermined. "If," he says (article " Israel" p. 399), 
" the legislation of the Pentateuch cease as a whole to 
be regarded as an authentic source for our knowledge 
of what Mosaism was, it becomes a somewhat preca- 
rious matter to make any exception in favor of the 
Decalogue." He accordingly urges the four follow- 
ing arguments against its authenticity. 1 

opinion, in connection with the later accounts of the Pentateuch, ap- 
pears to us to possess great probability." 

1 Kuenen, on the other hand, admits the authenticity of " the Ten 
Words as a whole," but saves himself by arbitrarily rejecting as much 
of each individual commandment as he sees fit. " The tradition which 
ascribes them to Moses is worthy of respect on account of its undis- 
puted antiquity. Nevertheless, if it were contradicted by the contents 
and form of the Words we should have to reject it. But this is not 
the case. Therefore we accept i*. Reserving our right to subject each 
separate commandment to special criticism, and, if necessary, to deny 
its Mosaic origin, we acknowledge it as a fact that Moses, in the name 



282 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

" (1) According to Ex. xxxiv. the commandments which 
stood upon the two tables were quite different." 

The ingenious conceit was first suggested by 
Goethe, that the laws of Ex. xxxiv. are the Ten Com- 
mandments according to a different tradition from 
that followed in Ex. xx. and Deut. v. It rests upon 
the assumption that the last clause in ver. 28 re- 
cords the fulfilment of the direction given ver. 27 
to Moses to write the words which precede, and 
which are alleged to be just ten laws, and hence 
identical with the commandments written upon the 
tables. 1 Its falsity appears from ver. 1, which shows 
that Jehovah, and not Moses, 2 wrote upon the 
tables, and that He wrote not the words now spoken 
but those that were in the first tables, which Moses 
had broken. This is a plain allusion to the preced- 
ing narrative (Ex. xxxii. 19) of the sin of the golden 
calf and the consequent rupture of the covenant 
so lately formed between Jehovah and Israel, which 
is further implied in the second pair of tables 
(xxxiv. 4), in the divine mercy and forgiveness em- 
phasized in vers. 6, 7, in Moses' supplication (ver. 

of Jahveh, prescribed to the Israelitish tribes such a law as is con- 
tained in the Ten Words/' " Religion of Israel," vol. i. p. 285. 

1 In identifying the words which Moses is here directed to write 
with the Ten Commandments (" The Old Testament in the Jewish 
Church," p. 331) Dr. Robertson Smith appears to give his sanction to 
the extraordinary hypothesis now under consideration. But he does 
not openly avow it. See above, p. 52. 

2 The change of subject in ver. 28 cannot occasion the slightest 
embarrassment. It is of constant occurrence in Hebrew construc- 
tion, where it would be readily understood by the reader or hearer. 
Comp. Gen. xxiv. 32 ; II. Sam. xi. 13. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 283 

9), and in Jehovah's engaging to make the desired 
covenant (ver. 10). The words vers. 11 -26, accord- 
ing to the tenor of which God proposes to make this 
covenant, and which Moses is told to write, are taken 
substantially and in part verbatim from " the words of 
the LORD " which Moses wrote at the original ratifi- 
cation of the covenant (xxiii. 12 ff.). The selection is 
made with definite reference to the great crime just 
committed. As they had offended in the matter of 
worship, the injunction is repeated of the service to 
be paid to Jehovah and to Him exclusively. They 
had forfeited all claim upon His promise to expel the 
the Canaanites ; accordingly this is repeated likewise. 
While Moses was to rewrite this portion of the orig- 
inal engagement, which had been particularly in- 
fringed, thus impliedly giving fresh sanction to the 
whole as the representative of the people on whose 
behalf he had been interceding, the LORD once more 
engraved in stone the same Ten Words which he had 
uttered from Sinai in the audience of the people, 
thus re-enacting on His part His imperishable cove- 
nant. 1 

1 While the entire narrative in Ex. xix.-xxxiv. is continuous and 
consistent and intimately related in all its parts, Wellhausen (" Jahr- 
biicher fiir Deutsche Theologie," pp. 564 ff.) discovers in it three en- 
tirely distinct and divergent accounts of the Sinaitic legislation. He 
assigns to the first, or Elohistic account, xix. 3-19, xx. 1-20, xxiv. 12- 
14, xxxi. 18, xxxii., xxxiii. 1-11 ; Num. x. 23- According to this writer 
the covenant was ratified and the people pledged obedience before the 
Law was given (Ex. xix. 3-8). In majestic grandeur God proclaims 
the Ten Commandments, which completes the Sinaitic legislation 
proper. The terrified people ask that Moses may speak to them in- 
stead of God. Moses is accordingly summoned into the mountain to 
receive the Decalogue written by God on tables of stone, and to spend 



284 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

And while the critics, who claim that a variant ver- 
sion of the Decalogue is to be found in Ex. xxxiv, 

forty days in intimate converse with God. This is not that He may 
give him specific commands to report to the people as in xxi.-xxiii., 
of which this writer knows nothing, but that Moses may be so filled 
with divine wisdom as to be fitted to be God's oracle to the people 
ever after. Then follows the affair of the golden calf, whereupon 
Moses breaks the tables of the law, and the Lord refuses to suffer 
the transgressing people to remain longer near His sacred seat on 
Sinai. They had previously had no other idea than that they should 
remain there forever (the last clause of xxxiii. 1 and the first clause 
of ver. 3 are reckoned interpolations). The people are distressed by 
the unwelcome intelligence that they must leave the holy mountain. 
The Lord is, however, so far mollified by the people's penitence that 
He gives them for their guidance the Tabernacle, and, though it is not 
in the present text, the Ark likewise, containing the broken tables of 
the law. The people then begin their march from Sinai. 

To the Jehovistic account he assigns xix. 20-25, xx. 21, 24-26, xxi.- 
xxiii., xxiv. 3-8, xxxiii. 1. In this God speaks nothing directly, but 
Moses goes alone to the mountain and receives from God His words 
and judgments, which he records, and the covenant is solemnly rati- 
fied. This completes the purpose for which they had come to Sinai ; 
and without any extraordinary event requiring it they leave for 
Canaan. 

The third account, which differs materially from both the preced- 
ing, is found in Ex. xxxiv. The first verse of this chapter is corrected 
by omitting all after the words " tables of stone." This, as well as 
the words " like unto the first " (ver. 4), has been inserted for the 
sake of linking this narrative with the preceding. Such manifest 
allusions to previous portions of the record used to be regarded as 
proofs of continuity in the history, if not of identity of authorship. 
But the critics have changed all that. They are now unhesitatingly 
traced to some editor intent upon " harmonizing " discrepant or in- 
dependent narratives, and are summarily ejected from the text. In 
vers. 6-9 the reference to the transgression of the people " betrays 
the hand of the harmonist," again a conclusive argument of interpola- 
tion, which is here fortified by the carping criticisms that " the Lord 
passed by " (ver. 6) is inconsistent with " the Lord stood " (ver. 5), 
that ver. 10 is not an exact response to the petition in ver. 9, and that 
these verses mistake the meaning of ver. 5, where it is really Moses 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 285 

are unanimous in affirming that this chapter contains 
just ten commandments, they are not altogether 

who proclaimed the name of the Lord. This allegation, for the sake 
of creating a fresh inconsistency wherever that is possible, is an effect- 
ual estoppel against all objection to assuming a like change of subject 
in ver. 28, where consistency requires it. Verses 10-13 are traced in 
great part to the same interpolaters, vers. 12, 13 being particularly 
obnoxious as squinting towards the unity of the sanctuary in the 
sense of the book of Deuteronomy. The Decalogue (vers. 14-26) "in 
its present expanded form only shows obscurely the decenary number, 
which once certainly was plainly to be recognized." Then the account 
of the ratification of the covenant by Moses as the representative of 
Israel, which the chapter must once have contained, has been omitted, 
as well as the conclusion following ver. 28, " for vers. 29-35 are not 
the continuation of what precedes." 

With the chapter thus purged of all objectionable matter, and of 
all that he is pleased to consider spurious, Wellhausen has no diffi- 
culty in making of it a distinct tradition of the original promulgation 
of the Law, with its " two tables, Ten Words, and forty days. 
Only the tables are written not by God but by Moses, and • . • they 
contain what Jehovah spake to Moses, not to the people." There is 
also this marked contrast between Ex. xx. and Ex. xxxiv. : " in the 
former the commandments are almost all moral ; in the latter they are 
exclusively ritual." 

All this is wonderfully ingenious ; and as a piece of literary jugglery 
it shows amazing dexterity and is vastly entertaining. But if seri- 
ously proposed as sober exposition and " historical investigation " it 
is to the last degree preposterous and absurd. It simply shows what 
ingenuity of a high order can effect by skilfully piecing together dis- 
jointed paragraphs, and how the entire sense of a chapter can be 
transformed by throwing out or putting in clauses and paragraphs at 
the will of. the critic. 

We do not object to the critics pursuing their investigations into 
the question of the Jehovist and the Elohist, and all the rest to any 
extent they please, if they will but use their common sense in the pro- 
cess. We consider the problem, in its perplexity and hopelessness, 
very much like that of squaring the circle. And while it is a matter 
of literary interest, we believe it to be void of all significance in de- 
termining either the age or interpretation of the Pentateuch. Never- 
theless, we shall be thankful for all the facts that can be developed 



286 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

agreed where the' first of the commandments begins 
nor how the division is to be made. 1 From the diver- 
respecting peculiarities of style, seeming repetitions, and the like. 
And if it can be shown that more than one writer had a hand in the 
production of the Pentateuch, very well. We are prepared to accept 
any conclusion upon this point that is strictly deducible from the facts, 
fully and fairly brought out and candidly considered. 

But the operation in which the critics are engaged is a very diffi- 
cult and delicate one, in which not only ripe scholarship but a sound 
judgment, clear head, and freedom from bias and pet theories are 
very essential ; in which the chances of error are very great and mul- 
tiply with every forward step, while each new complexity in the the- 
ory burdens instead of strengthening it ; in which the evidence relied 
upon is largely recondite, commonly ambiguous, often conflicting, and 
frequently factitious. Certainly the case does not warrant the posi- 
tive tone so frequently assumed, as though the critics were omniscient 
or infallible ; nor does it justify the reckless manner in which a favor- 
ite theory is often driven through in the face of adverse facts and at 
all hazards, — the accredited text and obvious interpretation and estab- 
lished history and revealed truth, all made to give way before it, as 
though the critic's theory alone were certain, and everything must be 
squared to correspond with it. 

1 The schemes severally proposed by Hitzig (" Ostern und Pfing- 
sten," 1838, p. 42), Bertheau ("Die sieben Gruppen Mosaischer Geset- 
ze," p. 92), Ewald (" Geschichte des Israel," 2d edit. vol. ii. p. 217), 
Kayser (" Vorexilische Buch," p. 58), and Wellhausen ("Die Compo- 
sition des Hexateuchs," p. 554, in " Jahrbucher fiir Deutsche Theol- 
ogie " for 1876) are as follows, viz. : — 

Hitzig. Bertheau. Ewald. Kayser. Wellhausen. 

vers. vers. vers. vers. vers. 

I .... . 12-16 18 12-16 11-16 14-16 

2 17 19, 20 17 17 J 7 

3 18 21 18 18 18 

4 19,20 22 a 19,20 a 19,20 19,20 

5 21 22 b 20 b 21 21 

6 22 23, 24 21 22 23, 24 

7 23,24 25 a 22 23,24 25a 

8 25 25 b 23, 24 25 25 b 

9 26 a 26 a 25 260 26 a 

10 26 b 26 b 26 26 b 26 b 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 287 

sity which exists among them it is plain that they 
could equally well have made out any other number 
that was desired, from seven to thirteen. And if it 
could be certainly established that there are just ten 
laws, it would not follow that, in the intent of the 
writer, they formed the original Decalogue. It has 
at least been quite plausibly maintained that the de- 
cenary structure prevails in several series of Mosaic 
laws, which are thus framed in imitation of the funda- 
mental law of the system. 

The commandments written upon tables of stone 
and preserved in the Ark are consequently not re- 
corded in Ex. xxxiv. but, as has been universally 
believed from the beginning, in Ex. xx. and Deut. 
v. These two are manifestly copies of one and the 
same Decalogue, the textual discrepancies being 
purely verbal and without the slightest effect upon the 
sense except in the reason annexed to the fourth 
commandment. Exodus no doubt preserves the 
exact official transcript, and Deuteronomy its sub- 
stantial repetition and enforcement by Moses in his 
address to the people. It is of no consequence, 
however, so far as our present argument is concerned, 
which of these is held to be the primitive form, or 
whether the attempt is made to elicit a text superior 
to either by the comparison of both. 

Wellhausen throws out ver. 22 altogether, and corrects ver. 25 b 
into accordance with xxiii. 18. Bertheau adheres to the common 
opinion in regard to the Decalogue, but maintains the decenary divi- 
sion of these laws, and generally of the Mosaic statutes in the three 
middle books of the Pentateuch. Evvald finds five successive deca- 
logues in Leviticus vii. and vi. ; (Authorized Version vi. 8-vii. 33). 



288 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Wellhausen's second objection to the authenticity 
of the Decalogue is (we quote again from the article 
" Israel ") : — 

" (2.) The prohibition of images was during the older pe- 
riod quite unknown ; Moses himself is said to have made a 
brazen serpent which down to Hezekiah's time continued to 
be worshipped at Jerusalem as an image of Jehovah." 

The second commandment occasions endless per- 
plexity to this most recent school of critics. How 
ineffectually Kuenen struggles to rid himself of it 
appears from the following passage in his " Religion 
of Israel" (vol. i. p. 287). 

" Moses' attitude towards the worship of images is a very- 
disputed point. The second of the Ten Words forbids it 
without reserve, but is strongly suspected to have been re- 
moulded and enlarged. Its great length of itself alone gives 
rise to this presumption. If it embraced nothing more than 
the words ' Thou shalt have none other gods before My 
face,' 1 we should not think of calling it incomplete ; the 
rest is superfluous and is therefore suspected. Besides this, it 
has been remarked that the words ' thou shalt not make unto 

1 Kuenen reckons the preface to the ten commandments as the 
first of the Ten Words. The first and second commandments he 
throws together as the Second Word, which he would then condense 
by abolishing the second commandment entirely, or at least cutting 
out that portion of it which is distinctive and refers to the worship of 
images. And this arbitrary suppression of one of the fundamental 
requirements of the Decalogue is all the ground for doubt that he can 
extract from the Ten Words themselves. Dr. Oort, who is heartily 
in sympathy with Kuenen and his school, lops all that he possibly 
can from the commandments, reducing the second to the bald injunc- 
tion, "make, no image of a God" ("The Bible for Learners," p. 18). 
But even then the prohibition of image-worship remains. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 289 

thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in 
heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters under 
the earth ' — sever the connection betweenlhe preceding and 
the following sentences, and that after these words have been 
removed, nothing remains but the prohibition to serve other 
gods. Thus the Ten Words themselves alone give abun- 
dant ground for throwing doubt upon the Mosaic origin of 
the warning against images. But history also seems dis- 
tinctly to bear witness against it. The worship of Jahveh 
under the form of a bull was very general in Israel in later 
times ; and in the kingdom of Ephraim, during the two and 
a half centuries of its existence, it was the religion of the 
state. Is it likely then that Moses expressly declared him- 
self opposed to it ? According to a narrative in the book of 
Judges, a grandson of Moses, Jonathan ben Gershom, 
served as a priest at Dan in a temple in which a graven 
image of Jahveh was placed : would the commandment of 
the law-giver have been broken in this way by the members 
of his own family? Again, the author of the books of Kings 
informs us that Hezekiah ' broke in pieces the brazen ser- 
pent which Moses had made, for unto those days the Israel- 
ites had burned incense in honor of that serpent, and it was 
called Nehushtan ' (i. e. brass-god) ; surely this implies that 
Moses was not so averse to images as the Peutateuch repre- 
sents him to have been." 

Dr. Kuenen might have pushed his argument much 
further. Professedly Christian states grant divorces 
for very insufficient reasons : is it likely that this can 
be prohibited in the New Testament? The Roman 
Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry, and com- 
mands its* adherents to abstain from meats on Fridays 
and other special seasons : would it do this, if I. Tim. 

19 



29O DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

iv. 3 were in its canon of faith? The Lord Jesus 
Christ instituted the eucharist, the bread of which is 
held up to adoration in every celebration of the mass : 
would even Dr. Kuenen dare to hold Him respon- 
sible for this perversion? And yet this is all that he 
has to say against the Mosaic origin of the second 
conmandment; and this is taken back by himself in 
the very next paragraph. He owns that the story of 
the brazen serpent, as every rational man must see at 
a glance, "signifies very little." "If it proves any- 
thing it proves only this, that the people knew noth- 
ing of a Mosaic prohibition so absolute as that which 
appears in the Decalogue." Will he say the same of 
the more modern worshippers of saintly relics? He 
adds : " The same applies to the other two facts to 
which we referred above. . . . The existence of the 
bull-worship is no sufficient argument against the 
supposition that Moses forbade any image of Jahveh. 
But the fact that this form of Jahveh-worship contin- 
ued to exist undisturbed is very difficult to reconcile 
with that supposition." It " continued to exist un- 
disturbed," only as other crimes which are perpe- 
trated in the face of the known statute. It was not 
sanctioned or approved by the Prophets or other 
good men. It was openly denounced and censured, 
and the people punished for it by being given into 
the power of their enemies. Dr. Kuenen proceeds : 

" There is one fact of which we may not lose sight in this 
investigation. From the Mosaic times downward there 
always existed in Israel a worship of Jahveh without an 
image. Scarcely any tradition of Hebrew antiquity is better 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 29 1 

guaranteed than that which derives the Ark of Jahveh from 
the Law-giver himself. ... If Moses believed this (viz. that 
the Ark was the abode of Jahveh) and accordingly offered 
the common sacrifices before the Ark, then he himself cer- 
tainly did not erect an image of Jahveh, much less ordained 
the use of one." 

His conclusion is that while Moses opposed the use 
of Jahveh-images indirectly, the prohibition of them 
" was not decreed by him but at a much later period, 
although it was done in conformity with his spirit ; " 
a conclusion which must be accepted, if at all, upon 
his sole ipse-dixit. 

Dr. Dillmann 1 gives the following compact state- 
ment of the case. 

" It cannot with good reason be maintained that such a 
prohibition, involving the idea of the impossibility of making 
any representation of God, as well as His invisibility and 
spirituality, is too advanced for Moses' time and his stage of 
knowledge, and therefore cannot have been given by him, 
but must have been first introduced into the Decalogue at 
a much later date. Apart from Ex. xxxii., where the nar- 
rative attributes to Moses a clear perception of the unlawful- 
ness of an image of Jehovah, it is certain in the first place 
that in the traditions of their fathers a cultus without images 
is ascribed to the Patriarchs ; and secondly, that in the post- 
Mosaic period it was a recognized principle, at least at the 
central Sanctuary of the entire people and at the Temple of 
Solomon, that no representation was to be made of Jehovah. 2 

1 " Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus," pp. 208, 209. 

2 As a specimen of the fairness of Wellhausen's statements, com- 
pare his remark, article " Israel," p. 406 : " Images of the Deity were 
exhibited in all three places [Jerusalem, Bethel, and Dan], and indeed 
in every place where a house of God was found." 



292 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

The worship of an image of Jehovah at Sinai (Ex. xxxii.), in 
the time of the Judges, and in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, 
does not prove that the prohibition of images was unknown, 
bnt only that it was very difficult to secure its proper recog- 
nition by the mass of the people, especially of the Northern 
Tribes, who were more Canaanitishly disposed. Or rather, 
it was for centuries an object of contention between the 
stricter and the more lax party, — the latter holding that it for- 
bade only the images of false gods, the former that it likewise 
forbade any image of Jehovah. Prophets such as Amos and 
Hosea, who contended against the images of the calves at 
Bethel and at Dan, never announce the principle that no 
representation can be made of Jehovah as anything new, 
but simply presuppose it as known. However far we go 
back in the post- Mosaic history, we find it already existing, 
at least as practically carried into effect at the central Sanc- 
tuary ; from whom then can it have proceeded but from the 
legislator, Moses himself?" 

Dr. Robertson Smith does not explicit^ deny 
the antiquity of the Decalogue, nor the right of 
the second commandment to a place in it, but he 
more than once expresses himself in a manner that 
appears to lead in that direction. 

" The principle of the second commandment, that Jehovah 
is not to be worshipped by images, which is often appealed 
to as containing the most characteristic peculiarity of Mosa- 
ism, cannot, in the light of history, be viewed as having had 
so fundamental a place in the religion of early Israel " (p. 
63). "If the prophecy of Hosea stood alone it would be 
reasonable to think that this attack on the images of the 
popular religion was simply based on the second command- 
ment. But when we contrast it with the absolute silence of 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 293 

earlier Prophets we can hardly accept this explanation as 
adequate " (p. 176). " Hosea does not condemn the wor- 
ship of the calves because idols are forbidden by the Law ; he 
excludes the calves from the sphere of true religion because 
the worship which they receive has no affinity to the true 
attitude of Israel to Jehovah" (p. 177). 

How he can say that " Amos never speaks of the 
golden calves as the sin of the Northern sanctuaries " 
(p. 140) is unaccountable, since this Prophet ex- 
pressly groups together as objects of the divine judg- 
ment, " they that swear by the sin of Samaria, and 
say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth, and, The manner of 
Beersheba liveth" (Am. viii. 14). The god of Dan 
can be nothing but the Golden Calf; and the sin of 
Samaria is the same thing, for they that swear by it 
say " By the life of thy god, O Dan." It is called the 
sin of Samaria as the object of idolatrous worship to 
both the capital and the kingdom ; in like manner 
Hosea calls it the Calf of Samaria (Hos. viii. 5, 6; 
comp. also Deut. ix. 21). The Doctor, in disregard 
of the connection, thinks that Amos alludes rather to 
the Ashera in Samaria (n. Kings xiii. 6). But why, 
upon his principles, Amos should inveigh against this, 
even if it were still there in his time, is not so clear ; 
for we are told 1 that this is one of " the old marks 
of a sanctuary . . . which had been used by the 
Patriarchs and continued to exist in sanctuaries of 
Jehovah down to the eighth century," and the prohi- 
bition of which in Deuteronomy " is one of the clear- 
est proofs " that this book is posterior to Hosea, 

1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 353. 



294 DR - ROBERTSON SMITH 

Isaiah, and Micah. The terms, in which Amos, with 
distinct allusion to the second commandment (Ex. 
xx. 4), expresses his contempt and abhorrence of the 
objects of Israel's idolatrous worship, "which ye 
made to yourselves" (v. 26), equally cover the 
golden calves, and include them in the same category 
of man-made divinities. (Comp. Hos. viii. 6.) He 
also very plainly declares that Jehovah was not to be 
found at Bethel (v. 5), which cannot be interpreted 
differently from the precisely similar language of 
Hosea iv. 15; that to worship at Bethel was to 
transgress (Am. iv. 4) ; that its altars were specially 
obnoxious to the divine judgment (iii. 14), while 
Zion and Jerusalem was Jehovah's earthly abode 
(i. 2). When these passages are viewed in con- 
nection with those first cited, it is plain that the 
idolatry of the calves is prominent in his thoughts 
in these denunciations. 

Elisha's attitude to the golden calves is shown by 
the message which he sent to Jehu (11. Kings ix. 9), in 
which he repeated the very words of Elijah (1. Kings 
xxi. 22 ; see above, p. 271). When Jehoram, who had 
" put away the image of Baal that his father Ahab 
had made" and adhered simply to the worship of the 
calves (11. Kings iii. 2, 3), sought the aid of Elisha 
in perilous circumstances, the Prophet's response was : 
"What have I to do with thee? Get thee to the 
Prophets of thy father, and to the Prophets of thy 
mother. . . As the LORD of hosts liveth, before 
whom I stand, were it not that I regard the presence 
of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, I would not look 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 295 

toward thee nor see thee" * (vers. 13, 14). It is also 
a significant fact that it was children of Bethel that 
mocked Elisha, and upon whom he pronounced his 
fatal curse (ii. 23, 24). In that seat of image-wor- 
ship the children had caught the bitter feelings of 
their elders towards the aged Prophet of the Lord. 
It is further a suggestive circumstance that it is pre- 
cisely in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes that the 
Prophets assume such unwonted prominence, and 
that such full and striking narratives are given of 
their labors as these of Elijah, Elisha, and the Sons of 
the Prophets under their superintendence. Whether 
the record is accepted as true, or dismissed as legen- 
dary, it nevertheless shows, in contrast with the dearth 
of like stories in Judah, that either in the plan of God 
or in the general sense of the people there was a 
peculiarity in the state of affairs in Ephraim which 
did not exist in Judah, and which demanded a meas- 
ure of Prophetic interference and activity in the one, 
that was not requisite in the other. 

The way in which the worship of the calves was 
regarded by other and earlier Prophets has been 
shown already (see above, p. 265) ; so that all objec- 
tion to the prior existence of the second command- 
ment on that score is fully set aside. 

Wellhausen's third objection to the authenticity of 
the Decalogue is : — 

K And this though the king, both in his exclamation (ver. 10) and 
in his appeal to the Prophet (ver. 13), confessed his belief in the su- 
preme government of Jehovah. " The Lord hath called these three 
kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab." 



296 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

" (3 ) The essentially and necessarily national character 
of the older phases of the religion of Jehovah completely dis- 
appears in the quite universal code of morals which is given 
in the Decalogue as the fundamental law of Israel ; but the 
entire series of religious personalities throughout the period of 
the Judges and the Kings — from Deborah, who praised Jael's 
treacherous act of murder, to David, who caused his prisoners 
of war to be sawn asunder and burnt — make it very difficult 
to believe that the religion of Israel was from the outset one 
of a specifically moral character. The true spirit of the old 
religion may be gathered much more trilly from Judg. v. than 
from Ex. xx." 

Dr. Robertson Smith has relieved us from the ne- ■ 
cessity of replying to this objection. In opposition to 
both Wellhausen and Duhm he affirms in the most 
positive manner that the religion of Israel was moral 
from the beginning, and that its specific character was 
determined by the exalted nature of Jehovah himself; 
by which he means the living, acting personality of 
the Most High, and not barely the conceptions formed 
of Him by His worshippers. 

" The real difference between the religion of Jehovah and 
the religion of the nations . . . lies in the personal character 
of Jehovah, and in the relations, corresponding to His charac- 
ter, which He seeks to maintain with His people. Properly 
speaking, the heathen deities have no personal character . . . 
in the sense of a fixed and independent habit of will. The 
attributes ascribed to them were a mere reflex of the attributes 
of their worshippers. . . . The god always remained on the 
same ethical level with his people. . . . Not so Jehovah. . . . 
He had a will and purpose of His own, — a purpose rising 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 



297 



above the current ideas of His worshippers, and a will directed 
with steady consistency to a moral aim. ... All His dealings 
with Israel were directed to lead the people on to higher 
things than their natural character inclined towards. To 
know Jehovah and to serve Him aright involved a moral 
effort " (pp. 66, 67). "When we speak of Jehovah as dis- 
playing a consistent character in His sovereignty over Israel, 
we necessarily imply that Israel's religion is a moral religion, 
that Jehovah is a God of righteousness, whose dealings with 
His people follow an ethical standard " (p. 71). 

And the difficulty which Wellhausen deduces from 
the low moral standard and conduct of certain Old 
Testament worthies is dealt with in the following 
manner: — 

" The fundamental superiority of the Hebrew religion does 
not lie in the particular system of social morality that it en- 
forces, but in the more absolute and self-consistent righteous- 
ness of the Divine Judge. . . . There are many things in the 
social order of the Hebrews, such as polygamy, blood-revenge, 
slavery, the treatment of enemies, which do not correspond 
with the highest ideal morality, but belong to an imperfect 
social state, or, as the gospel puts it, were tolerated for the 
hardness of the people's hearts. But, with all this, the reli- 
gion of Jehovah put morality on a far sounder basis than any 
Other religion did, because in it the righteousness of Jehovah 
as a God enforcing the known laws of morality was conceived 
as absolute, and as showing itself absolute, not in a future 
state, but upon earth. . . . There was no ground to ascribe 
to Him less than absolute sovereignty and absolute righteous- 
ness. If the masses lost sight of those great qualities, and 
assimilated His nature to that of the Canaanite deities, the 
Prophets were justified in reminding them that Jehovah was 



298 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Israel's God before they knew the Baalim, and that He had then 
showed Himself a God far different from these " (pp. 73, 74). 

Wellhausen's fourth and last objection is : — 

" (4.) It is extremely doubtful whether the actual mono- 
theism which is undoubtedly presupposed in the universal 
moral precepts of the Decalogue could have formed the foun- 
dation of a national religion. It was first developed out of 
the national religion at the downfall of the nation, and there- 
upon kept its hold upon the people in an artificial manner by 
means of the idea of a covenant formed by the God of the 
universe with, in the first instance, Israel alone." 

No further reply seems necessary to. an allegation 
so purely subjective, than that Professor Wellhausen's 
opinion is no law to other persons. 

If, then, anything whatever is certainly known of 
the Mosaic age, it is indubitably established that the 
Mosaic Ark contained tables of stone on which were 
engraved the Ten Commandments. These were treas- 
ured in the most sacred apartment of the Sanctuary. 
They formed the basis of the covenant between Jeho- 
vah and Israel. They were the fundamental law of 
the commonwealth of Israel, by which all further en- 
actments were regulated, and to which they were sup- 
plementary. They were believed to have emanated 
directly and even verbally from Jehovah Himself, 
and to have been by Him recorded in stone to indi- 
cate their perpetual, binding force. This sacred Ark, 
with its precious contents, was safely guarded until 
the time of Solomon, when it was transferred to the 
Temple (1. Kings viii. 6-9, 21; II. Chron. v. 7-10, vi. 1 1, 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 299 

41). It is still spoken of in the time of Jeremiah (iii. 
16), and the covenant on stone, which it contained, was 
only to be superseded by the law written on the heart 
(xxxi. 32, 33; see also II. Chron. xxxv. 3). Under 
these circumstances it is impossible that these com- 
mandments should not have been carefully and accu- 
rately preserved and transmitted. The positive state- 
ments in the Pentateuch itself that Moses wrote certain 
laws, Dr. Robertson Smith * seeks to limit to the De- 
calogue, but in so doing acknowledges that there is 
definite and explicit testimony that he did at least 
write it. Two copies of these commandments exist, 
attached to different codes of laws, and, with unimport- 
ant variations, are identical throughout. If monumen- 
tal and historical evidence is of any worth, these are 
the very commandments delivered to Moses. And 
this conclusion is not to be set aside by conjectures 
of the critics, which have not even the pretence of any 
evidence to support them. 2 

These things being so, some important consequences 
follow. The sacredness of Horeb to Elijah sprang 
from the giving of the Ten Commandments on its 



1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 331. 

2 Such assertions as these of Wellhausen cannot be dignified by 
the name of proofs, unless his word is to be taken in lieu of evidence : 
" Some passages of the Decalogue have a Deuteronomic tinge, e. g., 
'thy stranger that is within thy gates' (Ex. xx. 10), 'out of the house 
of bondage ' (ver. 2), and the whole of ver. 6." How does he know 
but that, on the other hand, Deuteronomy received its tinge from the 
Decalogue ? " The reason for the law of the Sabbath in ver. 1 1 first 
came from the last redacteur of the Pentateuch." "Jahrbiicher fiir 
Deutsche Theologie," xxi. p. 558. 



300 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

summit; and his recognition of the God of Horeb 
is in diametrical opposition to the worship of the 
calves. 

But there are also two other deductions which have 
a much wider reach. First, Moses had a far more 
exalted conception of Jehovah than is allowed to him 
in these Lectures. The God of the Ten Command- 
ments is a being of whom no image or representation 
can be made ; the Creator of heaven and earth and 
sea, and all that in them is ; the exclusive object of 
Israel's worship ; a God of truth, punishing iniquity, 
and who lays His demands upon the affections and 
not merely upon the outward conduct,. expecting the 
love of His worshippers, and forbidding them to 
covet the possessions of others. The religion of Is- 
rael began on this high plane, so far as divine revela- 
tion and requirements are concerned. And the 
Prophets, instead of evolving a spiritual religion from 
mere political ethics, or something lower still, simply 
recalled the people to this ancient standard, and en- 
forced upon their contemporaries what had already 
been taught by Moses. 

Secondly, the Decalogue affords palpable in- 
stances of laws well known, and of the highest au- 
thority, which were flagrantly disregarded. Every 
apostasy to Baal and Ashtoreth in the period of the 
Judges was in open violation of the first command- 
ment. It was, as Dr. Robertson Smith concedes, a 
falling away to the service of the gods of their ene- 
mies, which endangered the very existence of the 
religion of Jehovah. It was a departure from the 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 30 1 

fundamental Law of Israel, even on the low ground 
assumed by the critics themselves that Jehovah was 
but a national deity like Chemosh or Milcom. And 
if Ahab could persuade himself that worshipping the 
God of a friendly state was no violation of this com- 
mandment, this is but a fresh illustration of the point 
in question. The second commandment was broken 
by Aaron at the very foot of Sinai, by the idolater 
Micah and the renegade Danites, and by the Ten 
Tribes which followed Jeroboam in the worship of 
the calves. If there could be these notorious viola- 
tions of covenant laws, cut in stone and deposited in 
the Ark, what becomes of the argument that the non- 
existence of a statute may be inferred from the persis- 
tent disregard of it? 

These two principles, thus established, completely 
overturn this recent critical hypothesis from its foun- 
dations, and demolish its reconstructed history of 
Israel's religion. The Ark of the Covenant is an 
invincible argument of its utter falsity. 

Dr. Robertson Smith undertakes (p. 109) to divide 
the histories of the Old Testament into distinct groups 
and to assign to each a separate legal standard accord- 
ing to the period in which it was written. 

"The latest history in the books of Chronicles presupposes 
the whole Pentateuch \ the main thread of the books of Kings 
accepts the standard of the book of Deuteronomy, but knows 
nothing of the Levitical legislation ; and older narratives now 
incorporated in the Kings — as, for example, the histories of 
Elijah and Elisha, which every one can see to be ancient and 
distinct documents — know nothing of the Deuteronomic 



302 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

law of the one altar, and, like Elijah himself, are indifferent 
even to the worship of the golden calves. These older 
narratives, with the greater part of the books of Samuel and 
Judges, accept as fitting and normal a stamp of worship 
closely modelled on the religion of the Patriarchs as it is 
depicted in Genesis, or based on the ancient law of Ex. xx. 
24, where Jehovah promises to meet with His people and 
bless them at the altars of earth or unhewn stone which stand 
in all corners of the land, on every spot where Jehovah has 
set a memorial of His name." 

The style of worship regarded as normal in Judges 
and Samuel has been sufficiently considered in pre- 
ceding parts of this volume, and their distinct recog- 
nition of the law of one altar has been pointed out 
(pp. 87 fT., pp. 137 ff.). We have also seen that the 
histories of Elijah and Elisha are not indifferent to 
the worship of the golden calves ; and they would not 
have been modelled on the religion of the Patriarchs 
if they were. In the entire lives of these two Proph- 
ets there is but one recorded act of sacrifice, the mira- 
culous test of Jehovah's godhead at Carmel. If a 
sweeping conclusion is to be drawn from this single 
fact, it would certainly be as natural to infer that they 
chose to abstain from sacrifice on ordinary occasions, 
inasmuch as they were debarred from the central 
Sanctuary, as that they actually did sacrifice in various 
parts of the land, though this is nowhere intimated in 
the narrative. 

It is plainly, however, a venturesome affirmation, 
that Deuteronomy was unknown, or even the Levitical 
Law, when these narratives were framed. Elijah's first 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 303 

word to the idolatrous king, " There shall be no 
rain" (i. Kings xvii. 1), is in precise conformity with 
the threatening, Deut. xi. 16, 17. The material for 
sacrifice and its manipulation (xviii. 23, 33), accords 
with the requirements of the Law, even to the use of 
its technical terms (Lev. i. 6-8, ix. 16); its time was 
fixed by that of the daily meat-offering (xviii. 29, 36), 
which was presented both evening and morning (11. 
Kings iii. 20), agreeably to Ex. xxix. 38—41 ; its con- 
sumption by fire from the LORD (xviii. 24, 38) 
has its counterpart in Lev. ix. 24. Indeed, almost 
all the miracles in these narratives bear a striking re- 
semblance to those of the Pentateuch ; e. g. the super- 
natural supply of food (xvii. 6, xix. 6 ; comp. Ex. xvi. 
12) and of water (11. Kings iii. 17; comp. Num. xx. 
8) ; necessary things made to last for an indefinite pe- 
riod(l. Kings xvii. 14; comp. Deut. xxix. 5) ; fire to 
consume the Prophet's adversaries (II. Kings i. 10, 12; 
comp. Num. xi. 1, xvi. 35) ; the LORD'S " taking " him 
to heaven (ii. 3 fif. ; comp. Gen. v. 24) ; dividing the Jor- 
dan (ii. 8, 14; comp. Ex. xiv. 21 ; Josh. iv. 23) ; healing 
the waters (ii. 21 ; comp. Ex. xv; 25) ; the promise of 
a son to the Shunemite (iv. 16 ; comp. Gen. xviii. 10) ; 
the infliction of leprosy on Gehazi (v. 27; comp. Num. 
xii. 10 1 ) ; the healing of Naaman (v. 10; comp. Num. 
xii. 13; Lev. xiv. 7, 8); guarded by angels (vi. 17; 
comp. Gen. xxxii. 1,2); smiting with blindness (vi. 
18 ; comp. Gen. xix. 1 1). Even if it should be charged 

1 " Leprous as snow " occurs only in these passages and in Ex. iv. 6. 
And in some other instances here adduced the identity of characteris- 
tic expressions adds force to the similarity-of the incidents. 



304 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

that these are legends and not real occurrences, such 
stones could only have originated among a people 
familiar with the narratives of the Pentateuch. The 
slaughter of the priests of Baal (1. Kings xviii. 40) was 
in obedience to Deut xiii. 9, xvii. 5. Elijah's visit to 
Horeb implies all that made this mountain sacred at 
the time of the Exodus, and his fast of forty days and 
forty nights (xix. 8) has its parallel in Ex. xxxiv. 28. 
The law concerning one devoted to utter destruction 
(xx. 42) is found Lev. xxvii. 29. Naboth's refusal 
to part with his vineyard (xxi. 3) is based on Lev. 
xxv. 23 ; comp. Num. xxxvi. 8, 9. The forms of law 
were observed in the judicial murder of Naboth (xxi. 
10). The accusation was based on Ex. xxii. 28, which 
Dr. Robertson Smith considers ancient ; but the two 
witnesses are in conformity with Num. xxxv. 30, Deut. 
xvii. 6, 7, xix. 15; and the mode of inflicting the 
sentence with Deut. xiii. 10, xvii. 5. Micaiah (xxii. 
17) adopts the language of Moses (Num. xxvii. 17), 
and ver. 28 declares his readiness to abide by the test 
given of a true prophet (Deut. xviii. 22) . The double 
portion, which Elisha asks (il. Kings ii. 9), was the 
legal inheritance of a first-born son (Deut. xxi. 17). 
The infliction upon the children at Bethel (ver. 24) is 
in accordance with Lev. xxvi. 22. Persons were made 
servants for debt (iv. I ; comp. Lev. xxv. 39, 40). The 
Sabbath and new-moon were observed (iv. 23 ; see 
Lev. xxiii. 3 ; Num. xxviii. 11), and presentation was 
made of the first-fruits (iv. 42 1 ; see Num. xviii. 12, 13 ; 

1 The word translated " full ears of corn " occurs nowhere else in, 
this sense, outside of the Levitical Law (Lev. ii. 14, xxiii. 14). 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 305 

Deut. xviii. 4, 5) ; but in the absence of a lawful sanc- 
tuary the " holy convocation " assembled about the 
Prophet, and his devout adherents brought the first- 
fruits to him as to one who for the time " ministered in 
the name of the LORD." II. Kings v. 7 borrows from 
Deut. xxxii. 39. The king, no doubt, recognized in 
the horrid transaction, vi. 28, 29,. the fulfilment of 
Lev. xxvi. 29, Deut. xxviii. 53, and was the more ex- 
asperated against Elisha in consequence. " Make win- 
dows in heaven" (vii. 2, 19) alludes to Gen. vii. 11, 
and is equivalent to saying, " Send a deluge of bread." 
The law of leprosy was enforced even in a time of 
siege (vii. 3 ; comp. Lev. xiii. 46; Num. v. 2). 

Now, it is not here affirmed that any one of these 
allusions, or all taken together, amount to an invincible 
demonstration of the existence of Deuteronomy and 
of the Levitical Law before the time of Elijah and 
Elisha, or that they admit of no other possible ex- 
planation ; but it is safe to say that these allusions 
are as numerous and clear, as could reasonably be 
expected if Deuteronomy and Leviticus were then 
already known ; that no prejudice can possibly arise 
against the common belief on this subject from any 
deficiency in such allusions ; and that the presump- 
tion which they naturally create in its favor is not to 
be magisterially set aside, but only by the production 
of counter evidence of a decisive nature, and this does 
not exist. 

The Doctor tells us further that " the main thread 
of the books of Kings . . . knows nothing of the 

Levitical legislation." It has always been thought 

20 



306 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

difficult to prove a negative; but the critics do it 
without the slightest trouble. Any witness who did 
not see the culprit commit the deed ought, in their 
judgment, to convince the jury of his innocence. It 
would certainly be very stupid in any one to adduce 
the absence of classical quotations from the volume 
before us in proof that the Doctor knows nothing of 
the classics. He abstained from such quotations sim- 
ply because he found no occasion to make them in 
the course of his discussion. If the sacred historian 
had no reason for speaking of the distinctive require- 
ments of the Levitical Law, the fact of his not mention- 
ing them has no significance. His silence respecting 
them is no argument that he was not aware of their 
existence, or that he did not recognize their binding 
authority. No adverse conclusion can be drawn, un- 
less something is positively said, which is incompatible 
with the existence of the Law or with the writer's 
knowledge of its existence. . 

But do the books of Kings, in fact, know nothing of 
the Levitical Law? The elaborate description of Solo- 
mon's Temple and its vessels (i. Kings vi., vii.), and the 
entry into it of the glory of the LORD (viii. 10, n), 
presupposes the account of the Mosaic Tabernacle and 
its furniture (Ex. xxv. fT., xxxvi. ff.). The correspond- 
ence, not only in general plan but in a multitude of 
details, is so exact and pervading that one must of ne- 
cessity have been derived from the other. The Tem- 
ple is either an enlarged Tabernacle, built of more solid 
materials ; or else the Tabernacle is reduced in size 
from the Temple, so as to be capable of being trans- 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 307 

ported from place to place. The most radical critics 
do not shrink from the latter alternative. They do 
not hesitate to assert that the account in Exodus of 
the Mosaic Tabernacle is altogether fictitious ; that it 
is a purely imaginary structure, to which no reality 
ever corresponded ; that its measures and arrangements 
are mere deductions from the Temple of Solomon. 
But altogether apart from such a wholesale and un- 
warrantable challenge of the truthfulness of a narrative, 
which has every appearance of being historical, and 
has always been so regarded, no motive has ever been 
shown for such a fiction. It must surely have been a 
most dreary exercise of the imagination to figure out 
all the boards and curtains and coverings and loops 
and taches and pillars and sockets and bars and hooks 
and fillets and hangings, and to record them in long 
and wearisome detail, as though each minute particu- 
lar was of the utmost consequence, when in point of 
fact the whole thing was utterly baseless ; and the 
building, in regard to which so much pains was taken 
to invent and circulate a false account, had ceased to 
exist ages before, and was no longer of any present, 
practical interest. But if these details are real and 
genuine, and represent the actual Tabernacle of Moses, 
then this portion of the Levitical Law, at least, must 
have been in the possession not only of the author of 
Kings, but of the architect of Solomon's Temple. 

Further, the altar in use before the Temple was 
built had horns (1. Kings i. 50, 51, ii. 28), and accord- 
ingly was conformed to the regulation, Ex. xxvii. 2. 
Solomon's Temple was completed in the eighth 



308 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

month of the year (i. Kings vi. 38) ; but in order to 
add impressiveness to its dedication, this was fixed at 
the time of the annual least in the seventh month 
(viii. 2). Jeroboam changed the month in the Northern 
Kingdom, thus fixing the feast on the fifteenth day 
of the eighth month (1. Kings xii. 32, 33). The proper 
time for its celebration was therefore, according to 
the book of Kings, the fifteenth day of the seventh 
month, as it is defined Lev. xxiii. 34; Num. xxix. 12. 
Neither the month nor the day is named in Deuter- 
onomy (see xvi. 13 ff.) ; and according to the critics 
this is one of the later innovations of the Levitical 
Law, the day of the observance having previously 
been free, and regulated by the season. We are also 
told that there is no indication of a priestly hierarchy 
in Deuteronomy, that all Levites could be priests 
and all stood upon a level. But II. Kings xii. 10, xxii. 
4, 8, make mention of the high-priest ; xxiii. 4, xxv. 
18, of priests of the second order; and I. Kings viii. 
4 of priests and Levites as distinct classes. We also 
read repeatedly of Abiathar the priest, Zadok the 

priest, Jehoiada the priest, Urijah the priest, Hilkiah 
the priest, who were successively at the head of the 
sacerdotal body. All this is manifestly governed by 
the Levitical Law. According to II. Kings xxiii. 9 
the direction given in Deut. xviii. 6-8, as the 
Doctor interprets it, 1 was disobeyed, which is a fresh 
reason for questioning the accuracy of his interpreta- 
tion. (See above p. 79.) But apart from this, unleav- 
ened bread is here spoken of as the provision of 

1 "The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 362. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 309 

priests ; of this Deuteronomy says nothing, but we 
find it stated over and over in Lev. ii. 10, 1 1, vi. 16- 
18, vii. 10, x. 12. In 11. Kings xii. 16 l the trespass 
and sin-offerings are spoken of, which are peculiar to 
the Levitical Law; so are the meat-offerings (1. Kings 
viii. 64), and the morning and evening daily sacrifice, 
and the sprinkling of sacrificial blood (ii. Kings xvi. 
13, 15). King Uzziah, when a leper, was dealt with 
(II. Kings xv. 5) according to the law, Lev. xiii. 46, 
which is alluded to but not given, Deut. xxiv. 8. 

So far, therefore, from the books of Kings know- 
ing nothing of the Levitical legislation, and accepting 
only the standard of the book of Deuteronomy, they 
follow the Law of Leviticus whenever they have occa- 
sion to mention anything which falls within the 
scope of that law. They show acquaintance with its 
sanctuary, its calendar, its priesthood, and its ritual. 
That critic must be hard to please who asks for any- 
thing more. 

When, in the paragraph already quoted, the 
Doctor finds allusion in " the ancient law of Ex. xx. 

1 This passage speaks of " trespass-offering money and sin-offering 
money." The former admits of a ready explanation (Lev. v. 15-19; 
Num. v. 7, 8). What is meant by sin-offering money is more doubtful. 
It has been conjectured to be money given to the priest for the pur- 
chase of the victim, a portion of which became his perquisite in re- 
turn for this service, or a gift voluntarily bestowed upon the officiating 
priest (Num. v. 10). But however this may be, the Doctor's idea, that 
it was a money-equivalent paid by the transgressor for his sin, is pal- 
pably false. This has no analogy in the whole Old Testament, is ab- 
horrent to all Israelitish ideas, and is justly characterized by himself 
as " a gross case of simony " (" The Old Testament in the Jewish 
Church," p. 251). 



3IO DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

24," to " the altars of earth or unhewn stone which 
stand in all corners of the land," he is plainly substi- 
tuting his own interpretation of the law for the law 
itself. That surely would not be " closely modelled 
on the religion of the Patriarchs as it is depicted in 
in Genesis ; " for the Patriarchal family was a unit and 
offered its worship at a single altar. Though in their 
wanderings altars were successively reared by them in 
various places, each was for the time their exclusive 
sanctuary. Nor does it correspond any better with 
the state of things in the time of Moses. The Ark 
of Jehovah then " led the njarch of Israel." The 
Doctor speaks of " the first beginnings of [Israel's] 
national organization centering in the Sanctuary of 
the Ark." "The Sanctuary of Jehovah" was "the 
final seat of judgment" (p. 36). And he strenuously 
insists upon the vast importance of the national sense 
of unity thus created in its contrast with " a multitude 
of local cults without national significance "(p. 40). 
If now this law was given to Moses at Sinai, as it 
claims to have been (Ex. xx. 22 ff.), and was written 
and acted upon by Moses himself (xxiv. 4), and spe- 
cific injunctions were given by him in respect to it 
(Deut. xxvii. 5, 6) which were obeyed by his suc- 
cessor (Josh. viii. 30, 31,) and through all this pe- 
riod, by the Doctor's own admission, the host of Israel 
had but one central Sanctuary, the Sanctuary of the 
Ark, and if, furthermore, the consciousness of na- 
tional unity thus produced was of vital consequence to 
Israel as a people, and as the people of Jehovah, — 
we surely have a right to assume that the law is to be 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 31 1 

interpreted in conformity with the circumstances in 
which it was enacted and with the practice of Moses 
himself under it. 

If, further, the language of the statute be examined, 
there is nothing in it to require the assumption that a 
plurality of coexisting altars is intended. The 
terms are in the singular number throughout — 
an altar of earth, an altar of stone, mine altar, 
place x (not " places " as in the Authorized Version) 

1 Dr. Robertson Smith (p. 393) takes exception to the note (see 
above, p. 74) in which this circumstance has been before remarked 
upon. The collective use of the noun in such a construction is not 
denied. But attention is called to the significant circumstance that 
where the conception is that of a coexisting plurality, " all the places" 
is expressed in Hebrew by the plural noun (e. g. Deut. xii. 2 ; 1. Sam. 
vii. 16, xxx. 31 ; Ezra i. 4 ; Jer. viii. 3, xxiv. 9, xxix, 14, xl. 12, xlv. 5; 
Ezek, xxxiv. 12) ; while in the other two passages, in which this phrase 
is used with a singular noun, the reference is not to places viewed 
jointly, but regarded successively (Gen. xx. 13 ; Deut. xi. 24). The words 
are used in a different sense, Gen. xviii. 26. And as to the objection 
that Ex. xxii. 30 could have no application to the desert, because ver. 
29, with which it is associated, could only come into operation in 
Canaan, the fourth commandment was certainly operative in the 
Wilderness, though " the stranger that is within thy gates " looks for- 
ward to the occupancy of cities. The legislator from the first con- 
templated the settlement of the people in Canaan, but he did not for 
that reason leave them without law in journeying through the desert. 
Ex. xxi. 14 undoubtedly speaks of God's altar (in the singular number 
again) as an asylum, while even this must not be suffered to screen 
wilful murderers ; but ver. 13, " I will appoint thee a place whither he 
shall flee," just as plainly anticipates the subsequent appointment of 
cities of refuge. (See above, p. 76, note.) The use of the altar for 
this purpose is here recognized as familiarly known ; only it is limited 
to the unintentional manslayer, and the appointment of an additional 
place of like intent is promised. This promise is fulfilled Num. 
xxxv. 10 ff. ; Deut. xix. 1 ff., and the privilege of the altar is not 
withdrawn. Where is the discrepancy ? 



312 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

— and are quite consistent with the view that but 
one altar at a time was meant at each successive 
place of encampment, or wherever God might sub- 
sequently appoint. If a multiplicity of altars, as op- 
posed to one common sanctuary for all Israel, is 
denoted by this law, this cannot be inferred from the 
language used. It can only be established by proving 
that in actual fact Jehovah recorded His name at dif- 
ferent places simultaneously. To what extent this 
was done by special theophanies, or separate altars 
were allowed in abnormal periods, has been suffi- 
ciently discussed already. (See above pp. 94 ff., pp. 
137 ff.) The whole matter was governed by fixed 
principles and rigidly confined within plainly marked 
limits. Unlimited discretion was never accorded to 
men to build altars and establish sanctuaries at their 
own pleasure or convenience. And, apart from 
supernatural manifestations or extraordinary emer- 
gencies, there was from Moses to Malachi but one 
divinely sanctioned and permanent sanctuary, the 
Sanctuary of the Ark, and but one legitimate altar of 
sacrifice, the altar in its court. 

But, we are told (p. 393), "the climax of absurdity 
is reached " when this law of an altar of earth or of 
whole stones is regarded as comprehending the brazen 
altar of the Tabernacle and the Temple. It is not easy 
to see wherein the absurdity lies. The construction 
of the altar remains unchanged. It is simply encased 
in a frame overlaid with brass, to mark it as belonging 
to the Tabernacle Court, of which brass was the domi- 
nant and characteristic metal ; and likewise to suggest 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 313 

that the altar, renewed at each station on their march, 
was still substantially the same altar, for it had the 
same external covering, and stood in the same sacred 
surroundings. That neither priests nor worshippers 
saw any " absurdity " in this appears from the fact 
that the altar continued to be built of " whole stones 
according to the law" in each successive temple, 
and as long as the Temple stood (1. Mace. iv. 47 ; 
Josephus, Against Apion, i. 22 ; comp. also his Jew- 
ish War, v. 5, 6). 

The Doctor, however (pp. 110-112), thinks himself 
absolved in his discussion of the work of the Prophets, 
from any " detailed inquiry as to how much of the Pen- 
tateuchal Law was already known." The Pentateuch, 
even if extant, " was practically a buried book." The 
question of its Mosaic authorship is accordingly of no 
significance in the history and religion of Israel, and 
may be left on one side while attention is directed to 
things that " had practical place and recognition in 
Israel." 

" We have not found occasion to speak of Moses as the 
author of a written code, and to inquire how much his code 
contained, because the history itself makes it plain that his 
central importance for early Israel did not lie in his writings, 
but in his practical office as a judge who stood for the people 
before God, and brought their hard cases before Him at the 
Sanctuary" (Ex. xviii. 19, xxxiii. 9 seq.). 

Can, then, the bare fact that Moses exercised the 
office of judge, and was the medium of divine com- 
munications to the people, be so important, and yet 



314 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

the judgments which he actually rendered, and the 
messages which he delivered to the people as from 
God, be of no account? Can the tribunal at the Sanc- 
tuary have been so weighty an affair, and the re- 
gulations which governed its decisions not worth 
considering? In order to estimate the value of that 
tribunal, and its influence in shaping the current life of 
Israel, precisely what we most need to know is what 
was the system of justice therein represented, what 
sort of cases came before it, and upon what principles 
they were settled. This will give an insight into the 
usages and ideas of the people and the management 
of their affairs that can be gained in no other way. 
The civil code introduced by Moses, and the ordinances 
of worship appointed by him, furnish the needed start- 
ing-point in the study of the institutions and life of 
Israel. There is just the same authority for referring 
these to Moses as there is for believing that he acted 
as judge and leader of Israel in their coming forth 
from Egypt. The whole subsequent history unfolds 
from this fixed point, is determined by it, and cannot 
be properly understood without it. The Pentateuch 
was not a " buried book " because some of its statutes 
may not have been rigidly enforced in all the troub- 
lous and degenerate periods that followed. The very 
statutes that were temporarily obscured are needed 
to set those periods of defection in their true light. 
What would be thought of that historian of Roman 
Law who should set aside all consideration of the 
code of Justinian, because in the disorders and dis- 
tractions of later ages some of its provisions were 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 315 

temporarily overborne, and only slowly rose to full 
recognition again in later jurisprudence? 

But the Doctor presents us with an a priori argu- 
ment, which easily disposes of the whole matter and 
obviates the necessity of a laborious examination into 
the facts. 

" It is perfectly clear that the great mass of Levitical legis- 
lation, with its ritual entirely constructed for the Sanctuary of 
the Ark and the priests of the house of Aaron, cannot have 
had practical currency and recognition in the Northern King- 
dom. The priests could not have stultified themselves by 
accepting the authority of a code according to which their 
whole worship was schismatic. . . . The same argument 
proves that the code of Deuteronomy was unknown, for it 
also treats all the Northern sanctuaries as schismatic and 
heathenish, acknowledging but one place of lawful pilgrim- 
age for all the seed of Jacob." 

And so it might be argued that no rogue would 
ever stultify himself in a court of justice by admitting 
the validity of laws which make him a criminal and 
pronounce his doom. The Ten Tribes had undoubt- 
edly the most powerful inducements to deny and to 
renounce the authority of the laws of Moses, if it was 
possible for them to do so. But if we find them living 
under these very institutions, only modified by being 
blended with their idolatry, if we find evidence, in their 
departures from Mosaic requirements, that they never- 
theless confess their divine original and their binding 
obligation, then the strength of their motive to do 
otherwise but renders the confession that is wrung 
from them more significant. The question of the 



31 6 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

genuineness of the Mosaic legislation is all import- 
ant in its bearing on all the subsequent stages of Israel- 
itish history ; and it is only to be settled by a direct 
appeal to the facts in the case. 

We are referred in these Lectures (p. 117) to two 
chapters in the Bible as authority for the state of 
things in the Northern Kingdom, — Deut. xxxiii., " the 
so-called blessing of Moses," and Josh. xxiv. It is 
refreshing to find some firm footing in this dismal 
quagmire, to which everything has been reduced 
by the critics. And there are two points in these 
chapters which are well worthy of L consideration. 
The priesthood is distinctly attributed to Levi (Deut. 
xxxiii. 8, 10), and notwithstanding this the fact is 
that in the Ten Tribes the priests were taken indis- 
criminately from all the people, and "were not of the 
sons of Levi " (I. Kings xii. 31, xiii. 33). And Josh, 
xxiv. 26 tells us of "the book of the Law of God," 
which was already in existence in the time of Joshua, 
for he wrote in it an account of that solemn day which 
was passed in Shechem. So that Israel, halting be- 
tween Jehovah and Baal in the days of Elijah, was 
confessedly in possession of the book of the Law of 
God and of Joshua's serious and tender admonitions. 

And here we must join issue with the statement on 
page 115: — 

" In the time of Amos and Hosea the truest hearts and 
best thinkers of Israel did not yet interpret Jehovah's dealings 
with His people in the light of the Deuteronomic and Levitical 
laws ; they did not judge of Israel's obedience by the princi- 
ple of the one Sanctuary or the standard of Aaronic ritual." 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 317 

This is not to be decided magisterially by one 
flourish of the pen. Let us put together the scat- 
tered hints which these Prophets afford us on this 
subject, that we may obtain, as far as we can, an accu- 
rate idea of the divine standard of duty which then 
prevailed. According to Amos ii. 4 the great crime 
of Judah, for which a terrible penalty awaits them that 
the LORD will not turn away, is that " they have de- 
spised the Law of the Lord and have not kept His 
commandments." Hosea (viii. 1) in the name of God, 
denounces swift vengeance upon Israel, " because they 
have transgressed My covenant, and trespassed against 
My Law." This " Law of Jehovah," then, to which both 
these Prophets alike appeal, was common to both 
kingdoms, and both were culpable and obnoxious to 
the severest judgments for violating it. In Hos. iv. 6, 
according to the Doctor's own understanding of the 
verse, the priests are charged with having forgotten 
the Law of their God ; and in ver. 5 the Prophets are 
involved with them in a like condemnation. " Thus 
Hosea, no less than Amos, places himself in direct 
opposition to all the leaders of the religious life of his 
nation " (p. 156). 

And yet both priests and Prophets are spoken of as 
charged with sacred functions, and are not the objects 
of an indiscriminate denunciation. The priests were 
entrusted with the administration of the Law. It was 
theirs to declare God's Law to the people, and exercise 
the highest judicial functions under it. Hence, when 
Hosea would by one stroke set forth the extreme of 
presumptuous daring and hopeless obduracy that pos- 



318 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

sessed the people, so that it was useless to labor lon- 
ger for their correction, he says (iv. 4) " Thy people 
are as they that strive with the priest." x The form of 
expression is peculiar and highly significant. The cen- 
sure which he passes upon the people is not that of 
resistance to the priesthood ; for, considering the char- 
acter of the priests, as that is described immediately 
after, such resistance might be in many cases highly 
commendable. But they are " as they that strive with 
the priest ; " they are compared to bold and reckless 
men, who resist the officers of law, and refuse submis- 
sion to the authority of the supreme tribunal. It was 
in fact this prerogative of the priesthood which gave 
such fearful point to the charge already cited, that 
they whose duty it was to teach and to enforce the 
Law had themselves forgotten it, so that the people 
were destroyed in consequence, and God rejected 
these unfaithful priests from being priests to Him any 
longer. So, too, while the Prophets are rebuked and 
threatened, and there were those to whom prophecy 
was a trade and whose only concern was to get their 
bread (Am. vii. 12), — just as there were those who 
craved the priest's office for a living (1. Sam. ii. 36), — 
the sacred character and functions of Prophets are 
distinctly set forth. They are immediate messengers 

1 The text of this clause needs no correction, least of all any such 
bungling emendation as those which the Doctor gravely discusses 
(p. 406). The allusion to the priests' judicial function, coupled with 
the thought, which at once presents itself to the Prophet's mind, of 
their culpable unfaithfulness to this high trust, leads to the denuncia- 
tion ver. 5, — the suppressed thought, which links vers. 4 and 5, com- 
ing to full expression in ver. 6. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 319 

of God, to whom He makes confidential disclosures of 
all His purposes (Am. iii. 7), and through whom He 
declares His will and purposes to men (Hos. vi. 5, xii. 
io). 1 Amos ii. 11, 12 includes among God's distin- 
guishing benefits to Israel His raising up Prophets of 
their sons, and charges them with the sin of having 
" commanded the Prophets, saying, Prophesy not." 
Amos, no doubt, intends to associate himself with the 
Prophets who were thus obstructed in the perform- 
ance of their divine commission ; for, though not by 
regular profession a Prophet, nor one of the Sons of 
the Prophets, he too had been sent by God to proph- 
esy to Israel, and had been interdicted from doing it 
(Am. vii. 15, 16). While Hosea and Amos do not 
apply the term " law " to the utterances of the 
Prophets, it might be, and it was so applied ; in Isa. i. 
10, " the Law of our God " is an equivalent expression 
to " the Word of the LORD " spoken by the Prophet 
himself. (See also xxx. 9, 10.) But that the Law 
was something more than the oral instructions of the 

1 The Doctor tells us (p. 182) : "The possession of a single true 
thought about Jehovah, not derived from current religious teaching, 
but springing up in the soul as a word from Jehovah Himself, is 
enough to constitute a prophet, and lay on him the duty of speaking 
to Israel what he has learned of Israel's God." If he means to efface 
the distinction between the inspiration of the Prophets and the illu- 
mination enjoyed by all pious men who are led to clearer views of 
truth and duty through their own devout experiences, enlightened by 
the Holy Ghost, — and further, if he means to deny to the Prophets 
any direct and immediate commission from God to speak in His name, 
beyond the general obligation resting on all to impart of that which 
they have received, — then his statement falls below the conception 
entertained by Hosea and Amos. 



320 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

Prophets and the judicial decisions of the priests, deliv- 
ered from time to time as occasion required, appears 
from the fact that they could be charged with forget- 
ting it. There must, therefore, have been a fixed body 
of law, independent of and superior to those who were 
appointed to teach or to administer it, which neither 
priest nor Prophet could modify or set aside, and 
which was binding on them as on the people. 

The obligation of obedience resting on Israel is 
further set forth by representing this Law in the light 
of a covenant (Hos. vi. 7, viii. 1) or solemn engage- 
ment between Israel and Jehovah, the breach of 
whose stipulations is a just ground of controversy to 
Jehovah with His people (xii. 2), and calls for the 
exercise of His righteous judgment (v. 1, 11, vi. 5). 
Hosea (i. 2 ff.) further presents it under the image of 
the marriage relation, of which sacred bond their sin 
was a gross and shameless violation. This covenant 
union is traced back to the Exodus : " I am the LORD 
thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know 
no god but Me" (Hos. xiii. 4, xii. 9; see also xi. 1 ; 
Am. iii. 1, 2, ii. 10). It is even traced beyond that 
to God's dealings with their pious ancestor Jacob 
(Hos. xii. 3, 4). The leader out of Egypt, to whose 
charge the people was committed, was a Prophet 
(ver. 13), which implies that God made known His 
will through him. And in its infancy the nation cor- 
dially responded (Hos. ii. 15). 1 The covenant be- 
tween Jehovah and Israel was accordingly formed in 

1 For " sing," in the Authorized Version, read " answer j " the ref- 
erence is to Ex. xxiv. 3. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 32 I 

the days of Moses ; and of this there is, besides, mon- 
umental evidence in the existence of the Ark of the 
Covenant. The giving of the Law began with Moses ; 
whether he gave the Law in full, or simply made a be- 
ginning which was added to and developed subse- 
quently, may be left undetermined for the present. 

Of what compass was this Law in the time of Hosea 
and Amos? and what did it contain? It is observa- 
ble that neither of these Prophets thinks it necessary 
to expound the requirements of the Law or to argue 
their obligation. They assume throughout that these 
are well known and their binding force acknowledged. 
They deal chiefly in charges of transgression and 
threatenings of punishment. We may take it for 
granted that the sins with which the people are 
charged are violations of this Law, and that the vir- 
tues whose absence is deplored were enjoined by it. 
One comprehensive word used several times by 
Hosea, and variously rendered " goodness," " mercy," 
and " kindness" (Hos. vi. 4; see margin), embraces 
both love to God and love to man. 1 He heaps to- 

1 This word is admirably expounded by Dr. Robertson Smith (p. 
162) : " Jehovah and Israel form as it were one community, and hesed 
is the bond by which the whole community is knit together. It is not 
necessary to distinguish Jehovah's hesed to Israel, which we would 
term his grace, Israel's duty of hesed to Jehovah, which we would call 
piety, and the relation of hesed between man and man which embraces 
the duties of love and mutual consideration. To the Hebrew mind 
these three are essentially one, and all are comprised in the same cov- 
enant. Loyalty and kindness between man and man are not duties 
inferred from Israel's relation to Jehovah ; they are parts of that rela- 
tion ; love to Jehovah and love to one's brethren in Jehovah's house 
are identical." 

21 



322 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

gether a number of particulars (iv. I, 2) : " There is 
no truth, nor kindness (or piety), nor knowledge of 
God in the land ; swearing and lying and killing 
and stealing and committing adultery; they commit 
violence, and blood toucheth blood." It is plain that 
this Law must have embraced such duties of man to 
his fellow as chastity and sobriety (Hos. iv. II, vii. 4, 
5 ; Am. ii. 7, vi. 4-6) ; fidelity to engagements (Hos. x. 
4) ; justice, kindness, and truth (Hos. x. 12, 13, xi. 
12 ; Am. v. 7, 24, vi. 12) ; upright dealing as opposed 
to fraud and heartless oppression, particularly of the 
poor (Hos. vii. 1, xii. 6-8; Am. ii. 6-8, iii. 10, iv. 1, 
v. 11, viii. 4-6); and judicial integrity (Am. v. 10, 
12, 15). The Doctor concedes (p. 113) the exist- 
ence at this time of " the Book of the Covenant " 
(Ex. xxi.-xxiii.). " The ordinances of this code 
closely correspond with the indications as to the an- 
cient laws of Israel supplied by the older history 
and the Prophets. Quite similar, except in some 
minor details which need not now delay us, is an- 
other ancient table of laws, preserved in Ex. xxxiv. 
These two documents may be taken as representing 
the general system of sacred law which had practical 
recognition in the Northern Kingdom." 1 

1 The Doctor adds in the same sentence : " The very fact that we 
have two such documents conspires with other indications to make it 
probable that the laws, which were certainly generally published by 
oral decisions of the priests, were better known by oral tradition than 
by written books." We are not now dealing with the question whether 
the Law was oral or written, and simply remark that the history clearly 
states the mutual relation of these two series of laws. The second is 
not a varying tradition of the first. (See above, p. 279.) Moreover, 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 323 

The Prophets, however, deal still more largely and 
emphatically with the criminality of the people 
against Jehovah. Duties toward God must, there- 
fore, have had a prominent place in the Law. Israel 
is charged with being grossly unfaithful to her conju- 
gal relation to Jehovah (Hos. i. 2, v. 7, vi. 7) and for- 
saking Him for other lovers (Hos. ii. 7 and passim) ; 
and, without a figure, with idolatry (Hos. iv. 12, 17, 
viii. 4, xi. 2, xiv. 3,8); a lack of the true knowledge 
of God (Hos. iv. 1, 6, vi. 6) ; forgetting God (Hos. 
ii. 13, viii. 14, xiii. 6); not seeking God (Hos. v. 15, 
x. 12 ; Am. v. 4, 6) ; not waiting for Him (Hos. xii. 
6) ; not hearkening to Him (Hos. ix. 17) ; rebelling 
against Him (Hos. xiii. 16) ; profaning His holy 
name (Am. ii. 7) ; not returning to God after the in- 
fliction of judgments (Am. iv. 6, 8-1 1, where there is 
distinct reference to Deut. iv. 30, xxx. 2) ; backslid- 
ing from Him (Hos. xi. 7, xiv. 4) ; transient piety 
(Hos. vi. 4) ; presumptuous trust in God in their 
wickedness (Am. v. 18, vi. 1) ; mixing themselves 
with heathen nations and becoming like them (Hos. 
vii. 8) ; placing their dependence in a heathen mon- 
arch instead of Jehovah (Hos. v. 13, vii. 11, viii. 9, 
xii. 1, xiv. 3). For this they had been visited with 
famine, drought, blasting, mildew and locusts, pesti- 
lence after the manner of Egypt (comp. Deut. xxviii. 
27, 60), the sword, and overthrow like that of Sodom 
and Gomorrah (Am. iv. 6-1 1 ; comp. Deut. xxix. 

does the Doctor think that Ex. xxxiv. 17 " had practical recognition 
in the Northern Kingdom ? " What becomes, then, of his argument 
of the legitimacy of the golden calves ? 



324 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

23). And still heavier judgments were in store for 
them: the kingdom should come to an end (Hos. 
i. 4; Am. ix. 8), the land be utterly desolated (Hos. 
ii. 3, iv. 3; Am. iii. 11-15); their idolatrous sanctu- 
aries destroyed (Hos. x. 2, 8; Am. iii. 14; comp. 
Lev. xxvi. 30), and the people exiled (Hos. ix. 3; 
Am. v. 27). See this identical catalogue of evils, Lev. 
xxvi. 14 ff. ; Deut. xxviii. 15 ff. All this tends to 
create the impression that in the Law, to which these 
Prophets appeal, Israel's duty to Jehovah of worship 
and service had a greater proportional space accorded 
to it than is the case in Ex. xx.-xxiii. 

Was " the principle of the one Sanctuary " included 
in the Law to which Hosea and Amos appeal, and by 
which they " judge of Israel's obedience"? The 
Northern sanctuaries are separately and by name 
denounced as centres of iniquity and false worship by 
both these Prophets ; and, according to Amos i. 2 
God's earthly seat was in Zion and Jerusalem. Hosea 
in express terms exposes the iniquity of the golden 
calves, as the Doctor concedes, though he maintains 
that this had always before been regarded in the Ten 
Tribes as a legitimate form of the worship of Jeho- 
vah, and sanctioned by all preceding Prophets, as 
Elijah, Elisha, and Amos. That the skirts of these 
Prophets were clear of any complicity in this idol- 
worship has already been abundantly shown. But it 
is further plain, from the language of Hosea himself, 
that he is making no innovation and announcing no 
new doctrine. His words are not those of a man 
proclaiming for the first time that what the people 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 325 

had all along considered right was outrageously 
wrong. He enters into no argument with these he- 
reditary idolaters ; he refutes no objections ; he anti- 
cipates no opposition to his most startling statements. 
Confident of carrying the consciences and the convic- 
tions of his hearers with him, he calls their whole 
system of worship by the name of the grossest offence 
known amongst men. Their service nominally paid 
to Jehovah, he declares,^ was really rendered to 
Baalim (ii. 13). The indignant and contemptuous 
manner in which he speaks of the calves (viii. 5, 6, 
x. 5) and the stupidity of their worshippers (xiii. 2), 
and warns them of the wrath of God thus provoked 
and the judgment that should follow, shows that 
this is not some new light that has but recently 
dawned on his own mind ; but that as the servant of 
Israel's God he is confronting those who were know- 
ingly transgressors of His holy Law, while they wil- 
lingly walked after a human commandment (v. 11), 
that of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 

When, now, Amos sharply contrasts seeking Jeho- 
vah and seeking Bethel (v. 4-6), and declares in 
the strongest terms the loathing that Jehovah feels 
for their services professedly offered to Him (vers. 
21-23), the Doctor takes the meaning simply to be, 
" He is not to be found by sacrifice, for in it He 
takes no pleasure ; what Jehovah requires of them 
that seek Him is the practice of civil righteousness " 
(p. 139). "The whole ritual service is to Amos a 
thing without importance in itself" (p. 140). Amos 
*" shows a degree of indifference to all practices of 



326 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

social worship which is not uncharacteristic of an in- 
habitant of the desert" (p. 167). A worship which 
to Hosea was basely criminal, which was an atrocity 
to be punished by the direst judgments, — because 
Jehovah spurned the degrading homage offered to 
the calves, refusing to accept it as rendered to Him- 
self, — cannot have been to Amos a matter of indiffer- 
ence. When Amos speaks of the god of Dan as the 
sin of Samaria (viii. 14) ; when he says of Israel's 
multiplied services, " Come to Bethel and transgress ; 
at Gilgal multiply transgression " (iv. 4) ; when he 
makes the Northern sanctuaries the centres of iniquity 
and corruption that pervaded the kingdom, so that 
in the day that God visited the transgression of Israel 
upon him, He would also visit the altars of Bethel 
(iii. 14), — this is not simply because he attached no 
importance to ritual service. The service there paid 
was not merely of no account, inadequate as a sub- 
stitute for the practice of virtue. It was abhorrent. 
It was a nuisance to be abated, and which the LORD 
would tolerate no longer. " I hate, I despise your 
feast-days, and I v/ill not smell in your solemn assem- 
blies. Though ye offer Me burnt-offerings and your 
meat-offerings, I will not accept them ; neither will I 
regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take 
thou away from Me the noise of thy songs, for I will 
not hear the melody of thy viols." It is not feast-days 
as such that are thus abominable. It is not disgust 
at offerings and an outward ceremonial that is here 
expressed. It is "your feast-days " and "your solemn 
assemblies " that the LORD detests, because the wor- 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 327 

ship itself was of a debased, idolatrous character, and 
it was coupled with the practice of iniquity. 1 

The Doctor seems at a loss to find a proper anti- 
thesis to these denunciations of Amos. " If we ask 
what Amos desired to set in the place of the system 
he so utterly condemns, the answer is apparently 
very meagre. He has no new scheme of Church 
and State to propose — only this, that Jehovah desires 
righteousness and not sacrifice" (p. 141). Would 
Amos, then, abolish ritual worship altogether? and 
not sacrifices only, but "songs" of praise as well? 
Are there to be no acts of adoration and homage, so- 
cial or individual? Would he have no direct inter- 
course between Israel and his glorious King, no 
Temple, no altar, no prayer, no thanksgiving, no out- 
ward expression of devotion, — only " the practice 
of civil righteousness"? This would be a nearer 
approach to Confucianism than we can well imagine 
in a Prophet of Israel. 

If, however, he is not aiming at the abolition of all 
forms of worship, then it must be urged again that 

1 The Doctor tells us (p. 139): "When Amos represents the na- 
tional worship of Israel as positively sinful, he does so mainly because 
it was so conducted as to afford a positive encouragement to the in- 
justice, the sensuality, the baibarous treatment of the poor, to which 
he recurs again and again as the cardinal sins of the nation." This 
statement is defective, since it does not penetrate deeply enough into 
the source of this moral degradation. It is not merely because of 
the manner in which the worship was conducted, but because of what 
it was. It was not the service of the pure and holy Jehovah, the 
giver of the moral law. It was a bestial'nature-worship, to which the 
name of Jehovah was attached, but in which His attributes were 
disregarded. 



328 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

the intense language of Amos cannot be accounted 
for on the hypothesis of indifference. It betrays the 
most powerfully . excited feeling. His emotion is 
wrought up to the highest pitch. This could not 
arise from that which he held to be of small account, 
but only what was most precious and most dear. He 
cannot bear with the desecration of what was so 
sacred, the profaning of what was so holy. It is not 
that worship is so little worth, but because it rises 
in value and in awfulness above everything beside, 
that he cannot look with equanimity upon Israel 
converting the worship of Jehovah into a besotted 
mummery, the mimicry of devotion. 1 

Place now beside this that significant reference at 
the very beginning of his prophecy (i. 2) to the fact 
that the God whose warning message he bears, — the 
divine Judge of Israel and the nations, — utters His 
wrathful voice from Jerusalem and from Zion. Jeho- 
vah speaks from the Temple on that holy mountain ; 
from thence He thunders with a mighty roar against 
all the wicked of the earth. If Jehovah is there, He 
dwells in a Temple erected for sacrifice and for cere- 
monial observance. He is there for the purpose of 

1 This consideration is of itself sufficient to show that the interpre- 
tation which the Doctor would put upon Amos v. 25 cannot possibly 
be correct. It cannot mean that " the Israelites offered no sacrifice 
in the Wilderness, and yet Jehovah was never nearer to them than 
there " (p. 140), as an argument that sacrifices are of small conse- 
quence. The real emphasis in the verse lies in the words " unto me." 
Their apostasy from God began even in the Wilderness, in idolatries 
perpetrated there. And this is no more inconsistent with Am. ii. 10 
than Hos. ix. 10 is with Hos. ii. 15. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 329 

being worshipped and of receiving the adoration 
of His subjects. His presence there is the sanction 
of the purpose for which the house was built, and 
for which it was resorted to by those that feared His 
name. While Bethel and Gilgal and Beersheba are 
denounced (v. 5), as well as the High Places of Isaac 
and the sanctuaries of Israel generally (vii. 9), Zion 
was the spot where Jehovah might be found. 

Add now to this, that in Hosea's eyes the multipli- 
cation of sanctuaries is of itself a sin. When Israel 
worships on 'the tops of mountains and upon the 
hills, and under oaks, poplars, and terebinths (iv. 13) 
she acts the part of an unfaithful wife, who leaves her 
lawful husband for the love of strangers. When she 
worships at Gilgal and at Bethaven (he will' not call 
it Bethel, for it is no longer the " house of God") she 
does the same (iv. 15). Snares are set on Mizpah 
and Tabor (v. 1). Gilgal is a seat of detestable 
wickedness (ix. 15). Ephraim hath multiplied altars 
to sin (viii. 11), — each fresh altar not only a fresh 
occasion of sin, but its erection itself a sin. The vast 
number of his altars is also charged against him in 
x. 1, and perhaps in xii. 11 likewise; they are as de- 
void of all sacredness as ordinary stone-heaps, unless 
indeed the stone-heaps represent the state of utter 
ruin to which they shall be reduced. Consider fur- 
ther, that while the LORD declares that He will no 
more have mercy upon the house of Israel, He will 
have mercy upon the house of Judah, and save them 
by Jehovah their God (i. 6, 7) ; that for the present 
God refuses to recognize Israel as His people or to 



330 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

be Himself their God (ver. 9) ; but that hereafter 
Judah and Israel shall be joined again (ver. 11), as 
before the schism and apostasy of Jeroboam, and 
then (hi. 5) the children of Israel shall return and 
seek the LORD their God and David their king. And 
can there be a remaining doubt as to where the true 
place of worship was in the mind of Hosea? 

With all this associate one more fact, and the chain 
of argument will be complete. The binding obliga- 
tion of "the principle of the one Sanctuary" was 
recognized by Hezekiah (11. Kings xviii. 4, 22), as the 
critics confess, shortly after the time of Hosea, or 
perhaps even before his long ministry was ended. 
And conclusive proof has been furnished in the pre- 
ceding pages, as we suppose (see above, pp. 85 fT., 
pp. 137 fT.), that its obligatory character was recog- 
nized in all periods of the history of Israel from the 
time of Moses downward. This was, then, we may 
affirm without hesitation, an integral part of the Law 
recognized by Hosea and Amos as the standard 
authority in both Israel and Judah in their day. 

But, if this point is established, some further con- 
sequences follow. The fact that the principle of the 
one Sanctuary was enforced by Josiah with greater 
rigor than before is the staple argument of the critics 
for dating the book of Deuteronomy from his reign, 
or shortly before it. If, however, that principle, 
instead of being a recent invention of " the prophetic 
party" of that period, was already standard law in 
the time of Hosea, and in fact had been law in Israel 
ever since the days of Moses, what becomes of the 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 331 

critical argument, and what of the conclusion based 
upon it? 

Much of Deuteronomy certainly was of ancient 
date. Dr. Robertson Smith correctly says J : — 

" The Deuteronomic Code is not a mere supplement to 
the First Legislation. It is an independent reproduction 
of its substance, sometimes merely repeating the older laws, 
but at other times extending or modifying them. It covers 
the whole ground of the old Law, except the law of treason 
(Ex. xxii. 28) and the details as to compensations to be paid 
for various injuries." 

And he gives a very serviceable comparative table, 2 
showing " how completely Deuteronomy covers the 
same ground with the First Legislation." Now, ac- 
cording to the Doctor's own theory, the First Legisla- 
tion, or the Book of the Covenant, existed long before 
the time of Hosea. All this portion of Deuteronomy, 
then, belonged in substance, if not in form, to the Law 
in Hosea's days. And in regard to the remaining 
provisions of Deuteronomic Law, can the critics point 
out one which was introduced between the age of 
Hosea and that of Josiah? If not, what good reason 
can they give for questioning that the whole Deuter- 
onomic Law was in the possession of Hosea and of 
Amos? In fact, what good reason can they give for 
questioning that it had been in existence ever since 
the days of Moses? The Doctor tells us (p. 35), " It 
is difficult for us to determine with precision how far 
Moses in person carried the work of giving to Israel 

1 " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church/' p. 317. 

2 Ibid. p. 431. 



332 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

divine ordinances." Is it not in fact so difficult that 
the safest way for us is to accept the explicit testi- 
mony of the sacred record, that both the Book of the 
Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law were given by 
Moses himself, confirmed as this is by the uniform 
belief of all post-Mosaic times and by all the tests 
which we are capable of applying to it. The advo- 
cates of development may be reluctant to concede 
this. But we do not really see what they have to 
stand upon, in refusing their assent, but their own 
a priori theory. The facts, so far as they are capable 
of being ascertained, are all the other way. 

Had the Law, to which Hosea and Amos appeal, 
any ritual requirements? It will not be necessary to 
reproduce here the evidence already given (see 
above, pp. 115, 116) that Israel in the time of these 
Prophets had an extensive ceremonial. But was this 
of divine obligation? The Doctor reminds us that — 

" Israel, like the other nations, worshipped Jehovah at 
certain fixed sanctuaries, where He was held to meet with 
His people face to face. The method of worship was by 
altar gifts, expressive of homage • for the good things of His 
bestowal, and the chief occasions of such worship were the 
agricultural feasts, just as among the Canaanites. The de- 
tails of the ceremonial observed were closely parallel to those 
still to be read on Phoenician monuments. Even the tech- 
nical terms connected with the sacrifice were in great part 
identical" (p. 56). 

If these heathen parallels are of any significance in 
accounting for the attitude of the Prophets toward the 
ceremonial worship in Israel, it might be supposed 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 333 

that they did so in one or the other of two ways. 
In the first place Israel's religious rites may be con- 
jectured to have been of heathen origin and imported 
into the worship of Jehovah from the worship of 
heathen divinities, and thus may have been regarded 
as foreign to God's true worship and offensive to Him. 
Or, in the second place, it may be imagined that these 
rites, being common to Israel and the heathen, con- 
tained nothing that was distinctively characteristic of 
the religion of Jehovah in contrast with other systems, 
and may for this reason have been considered a mat- 
ter of indifference. It was of no account whether 
men engaged in the ritual or not. Jehovah was to be 
served not by sacrifice but by righteousness. Upon 
either hypothesis the bare fact that Hosea and Amos 
refer to these ceremonies as observed in Israel, would 
not establish for them a place in the Law which was 
to these Prophets the standard of divine obligation. 

Now as to the first supposition, it is evident that 
the ritual practised in their days was not regarded by 
the Prophets as heathenish importations which were 
in themselves criminal and offensive ; for in all their 
censures of Israel's worship they never intimate any- 
thing of the kind. On the contrary, Hosea represents 
sacrifice by which pardon was obtained, and the 
ephod by which the will of God was consulted, as 
essential to the maintenance of Israel's intercourse 
with Jehovah ; so that when he would depict the peo- 
ple in the seclusion of the Exile, — awaiting a hap- 
pier future, but their relation to God and to idols 
both severed for the present, — he speaks of them 



334 DR - ROBERTSON SMITH 

(iii. 4) as on the one hand without a sacrifice and 
without an ephod, and on the other hand without an 
image and without teraphim. As the latter were in- 
dispensable instruments and accompaniments of idola- 
try, so were the former of the true worship of Jehovah. 
When he says (v. 6) " They shall go with their 
flocks and with their herds to seek the Lord, but 
they shall not find Him," the antithesis implies that 
there was reason to expect that going with such of- 
ferings they would find Him. The real cause of their 
failure is immediately added : " He hath withdrawn 
Himself from them." When the Most High declares 
(vi. 6) that He desired " the knowledge of God more 
than burnt-offerings," it is implied that burnt-offer- 
ings were desired. When their petitions, offered at 
their sacrificial festivals, are contemptuously called 
" howling upon their beds " (vii. 14), it was not that 
this was a prohibited mode of entreating His favor, 
but because of their rebellion against Him and that 
they did not cry unto Him with their heart. The 
threatened captivity would be aggravated by their in- 
ability to observe the laws of ceremonial purity: 
"They shall eat unclean things in Assyria" (ix. 3). 
The acceptability of drink-offerings properly pre- 
sented is taken for granted (ix. 4) ; and sacrifice 
must have been regarded as pleasing to God, when it 
is made the symbol of praise : " So will we render 
calves, our lips " (xiv. 2). So that when their pre- 
dicted shame and disappointment is attributed to 
their sacrifices (iv. 19), it is not because sacrifices are 
in themselves criminal, but theirs are not what sacri- 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 335 

fices ought to be. Amos speaks of it as a divine 
favor to Israel that their sons were led to take the 
Nazarite vow (ii. 11), and reproaches the people for 
a breach of the ceremonial in giving them wine to 
drink (ver. 12), and in adding leaven to their thank- 
offering (iv. 5). And if Jehovah dwells in Zion 
(i. 2) He necessarily sanctions that form of worship, 
for which His house on Zion was expressly built. 

Sacrifice as such is not offensive to God, therefore; 
and the warmth of the language of Amos regarding 
it has already shown us that it is not a matter of in- 
difference. It must, consequently, have been es- 
teemed obligatory; and, as the intensity of the 
Prophet's feelings with regard to it reveals, the ob- 
ligation must have been so solemn and imperative 
that a dereliction of duty in this particular awakened 
the most intense indignation. There is no escape 
from the conclusion that the developed ritual of their 
day was enjoined in the Divine Law. 

And if this Law contained all that they describe, it 
must have contained much more ; for their allusions 
are merely incidental, and not made with any view of 
covering the entire round of required observance ; and 
there is the greater reason to believe that this was the 
case, because the scope and tenor of their teaching 
was mainly directed to a different matter, — not so 
much to the forms of worship, with which the people 
were sufficiently familiar, as to the spirit of piety 
which should animate them, and the life of upright- 
ness which should accompany them. And, further, a 
Law containing these particulars must have likewise 



336 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

included other things which they necessarily imply. 
If there were priests and offerings and tithes and dis- 
tinctions of clean and unclean, there must have been 
specifications under each of these heads, to enable the 
people to act intelligently with regard to them, and 
the ministers of religion to decide the questions which 
would be constantly arising about them. There must 
have been rules regulating the support of the priests 
and the contributions of the people. Directions must 
have been given with some detail as to the ritual to 
be observed in different kinds of sacrifice, and what 
were proper occasions for their presentation. And 
so in regard to other matters. The particulars posi- 
tively stated by the Prophets not only justify but 
compel the assumption of an extended ceremonial 
Law. These few hints and allusions do not of course 
enable us to determine all its contents in detail. But 
all these allusions accord with the Levitical Law of the 
Pentateuch. They are just such as might be ex- 
pected if that Law, in its full extent, was in the hands 
of these Prophets. There is not one statute of that 
Law which may not have been in it then, so far as we 
can gather from the intimations given by Hosea and 
Amos, or so far as we can infer from contemporane- 
ous or subsequent history. They must have pos- 
sessed the Levitical Law as we now have it, or one so 
closely resembling it that no critic can point out 
a single particular in which it must have differed 
from it. 1 

1 As a further suggestion of the source of this ritual, it may be 
observed that the usage of the Feast of Tabernacles, alluded to in 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 337 

So that Prof. Rudolph Smend, 1 though an advocate 
of Graf's hypothesis, uses the following language : — 

" That purity and holiness, and the corresponding lustra- 
tions and atoning sacrifices, must at all times have played a 
great part in Israelitish worship, and this [worship] must, in 
the Temple of Jerusalem, have had essentially the form which 
is presented in Leviticus, cannot be denied, even though the 
casual intimations of the older prophetical writings do not 
suffice to prove it. For this reason we cannot see what es- 
sential alterations the conceptions hitherto entertained of the 
inner development of religion in Mosaism must undergo, 
even if a few particulars should be shown to be post-exilic." 
" Accordingly we do not know what objection can be made 
to the earlier composition of Leviticus on the ground of the 
older prophetical writings." 

There is no reason in fact why the Levitical Law 
may not have been given by Moses, except the fig- 
ment of development. There is nothing but this 
philosophical theory, unsupported by any Biblical 
facts, to outweigh the positive and repeated declara- 
tions contained in Leviticus itself — and accredited 
to us by the testimony of all subsequent ages, 
through which it has been handed down and by 

Hos. xii. 9, finds its explanation neither in the Book of the Covenant 
nor in Deuteronomy, but only in Lev. xxiii. 42. 

1 In his elaborate and extremely able article " On the Stage of De- 
velopment of the Religion of Israel presupposed by the Prophets of 
the Eighth Century," in the " Studien und Kritiken " for 1876, pp. 655, 
661. This was written shortly after the appearance of Duhm's " The- 
ology of the Prophets," and chiefly with the view of pointing out the 
serious errors of that work. I have been largely indebted to the sug- 
gestions of this article in the preceding discussion. 



338 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

which it was esteemed most sacred — that these laws 
were announced by Moses as divinely communicated 
to him. That the absence of these ritual laws from 
Deuteronomy cannot be urged in support of the the- 
ory, as though Leviticus must be the development of 
a later age, is also confessed by Smend : — 

" If a law-book, which professedly aims to give a complete 
order of the cultus, speaks of many things about which 
another, which has no such design, is silent, it nevertheless 
does not follow that the former, on account of the greater 
copiousness of its contents, must belong to a later time, in 
which the worship was further developed " (p. 654). 1 

We inquire further, was the Law, of which Hosea 
speaks, written or oral? The usage of the period is 
very clearly shown by his contemporary Isaiah, who 
speaks of it as a matter of course that enactments 
were committed to writing. "Woe unto them that 
decree unrighteous decrees, and to the scribes that 
write grievousness " (Isa. x. 1). The fact that Hosea 
and Amos wrote their prophecies not only implies an 
already existing literature, which is besides sufficiently 
attested in other ways ; but, inasmuch as they were 
designed to enforce the divine Law, and were them- 
selves regarded as a supplementary Law of the Lord 
(Isa. i. 10), if they were reduced to writing, it must 
have been because this was likewise the case with the 

1 Dr. Robertson Smith must acknowledge the cogency of what is 
here said by Smend, since he himself considers the aim of Deuteron- 
omy to be different from that of Leviticus. See the passage cited 
from " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," in note 2, page 76, 
above. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 339 

code to which they were virtually annexed. It was 
customary at that time to write whatever was to be 
carefully preserved (Isa. viii. 1, xxx. 8). Samuel 
wrote the manner of the kingdom (I. Sam. x. 25). 
David had a recorder and a scribe among the chief 
officers of his court (il. Sam. viii. 16, 17, xx. 24, 25); 
so had Solomon (1. Kings iv. 3) and subsequent kings 
(il. Kings xii. 10, xviii. 18). The commission, appointed 
by Joshua to divide the land, made their report in 
writing (Josh, xviii. 9). In the song of Deborah, 
whose antiquity is universally acknowledged, scribes 
marshal the troops (Judg. v. 14). Writing was in 
familiar use in ordinary matters. David wrote a let- 
ter about Uriah (11. Sam. xi. 14, 15), Jezebel about 
Naboth (1. Kings xxi. 8, 9), the king of Syria about 
Naaman (11. Kings v. 5-7), Jehu about Ahab's sons 
(il. Kings x. 1). Lots were inscribed (Num. xvii. 2; 
Lev. xvi. 8) ; writing by the priest was part of the cere- 
monial in the jealousy-offering (Num. v. 23) ; and an 
old Canaanitish city bore the name of Kirjath-sepher, 
(Book-town). The law of divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1) im- 
plies that men generally were able to write. Gideon re- 
quired a young man, taken at random, to write out for 
him the princes of Succoth (Judg. viii. 14 ; see also Isa. 
x. 19). In such a state of things it would be utterly 
unaccountable if the Law, which was held to be of di- 
vine authority and believed to have emanated from 
God Himself, which lay at the foundation of public 
justice and regulated public worship, was suffered to 
remain unwritten and exposed to all the risks of oral 
transmission. 



34-0 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

The Ten Commandments were not only written but 
engraved in stone in the lifetime of Moses himself. In 
Josh, xxiv., to which we are referred (p. 118) for a 
reliable exposition of Israelitish views, it appears 
(vers. 25, 26) that Joshua at once wrote the statute 
and ordinance which he gave to the people in She- 
chem ; and further that " the book of the Law of God " 
was already in existence at that time. 1 The Doctor 
himself concedes (p. 113) that there were "ancient 
laws " which had " currency in a written form ; " only 
he tells us that they must be sought not in Deuter- 
onomy nor in Leviticus, but " in other parts of the 
Pentateuch, particularly in the Book of the Covenant 
(Ex. xxi-xxiii.)." And while he asserts (p. 114) that 
" neither Hosea nor Amos alludes to an extant written 
Law," he adds that " this fact does not prove that writ- 
ten laws did not exist." When, therefore, Hosea (viii. 
12), 2 speaking in the name of God, says in express 
terms, " I write to him the ten thousand precepts of 
My Law ; they have been counted as a strange thing," 

1 The hasty inference that this chapter " speaks without offence of 
the sacred tree and sacred stone that marked this great Northern sanc- 
tuary, and is therefore quite ignorant of the Deuteronomic Law," is 
shown to be invalid; p. 162, above. 

2 The Doctor says, "Hos. viii. T2 is mistranslated in the Authorized 
Version." If this is to be settled by confident assertion we may bal- 
ance his statement by the contrary one of Professor Smend (p. 633 of 
the article before cited), whom we may without disrespect presume 
that the Doctor will admit to be his peer in Hebrew learning. (See 
above, p. 114, note). Smend (p. 637) thinks that there were several 
written collections of laws ; but of this there is no evidence. Hosea 
and Amos speak of but one Divine Law ; and their words leave no room 
for the supposition of various rival codes with conflicting statutes. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 34 1 

this is just such a declaration as the facts already re- 
viewed prepare us for and warrant us in crediting. 
The Law known to Hosea and Amos was an extensive 
code, embracing a multitude of requirements, and it 
was in written form ; and although transgressed as 
though it were something foreign to the people, and 
which had no claim upon them, it had nevertheless 
proceeded from the LORD Himself. 

One more question remains : Who wrote this Law, 
to which Hosea and Amos attach undoubted divine 
authority, and upon which they base all their denun- 
ciations ? We have a right to ask, and to demand an 
answer, for it is universally allowed to be one of the 
great legal systems of the world. Such a body of law 
never grew up by accident. It is not the aggregate of 
judicial decisions rendered in the course of ages, at 
various tribunals by successive judges. In that case 
there would necessarily be conflicting and incoherent 
statutes, and the bare record of such decisions would 
be a tangled wilderness of disconnected utterances. 
Even if resting ultimately on such decisions, it must 
have been carefully codified. It is a systematic body 
of law, based on great fundamental principles, which 
are carried out to their logical results in a consistent 
and masterly manner. 1 Every part of it evidences 
clear thought, a high faculty of administration, and 
comprehensive views. Who produced this body of 

1 If, as has sometimes been alleged, some of these institutions — 
as, for example, the Year of Jubilee — were merely theoretical, and 
never came into practical operation, this but adds to the evidence that 
the whole sprang from one constructive mind. 



342 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

law, or who digested it and reduced it to order? 
Whose thought reigns in the whole? 

The critics have felt the pressure of this question, 
and sought at one time to fasten Deuteronomy upon 
Jeremiah, as they have assigned Leviticus to Ezra. 
But they have themselves abandoned the former as 
untenable ; and even those who allege that Leviticus in 
its present form was written by Ezra, must concede that 
the chief provisions of that Law were much older. Both 
of these codes must have been substantially, at least, 
and in their main features, prior to Hosea and Amos, 
— long prior, for the Law of which these Prophets 
speak was no recent production, no modern innovation, 
but the old, established, authoritative Law. Could its 
author have been David? Of his reign we have a 
full account, — of his enterprises, of the measures 
which he carried into effect, of his schemes of govern- 
ment and of worship. But there is no record of his 
having prepared or introduced any such body of law ; 
this is in fact not shaped upon the theory of a 
kingly government; and later ages never suggest that 
it is to be referred to him. Could it have been Samuel, 
the great reformer, prophet, and judge? But the 
chaotic period, in which he lived and labored, is just 
the one in which these laws were more in abey- 
ance than in any other. Is the great legislator of 
Israel, then, buried in complete oblivion, his name 
forgotten quite, and no tradition, however faint, pre- 
served respecting him? Did the master-mind that 
shaped these laws and institutions, which are the 
wonder of all who study them, leave no impress of 
himself upon his nation and his age? 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 343 

One is involuntarily reminded of the story which 
used to be told of the Englishman making his first 
journey in France, who innocently inquired of one 
who sat next him in the coach, " Whose are these 
elegant grounds and buildings that we are passing?" 
The bewildered native, ignorant of English, simply 
replied, " Monsieur, je ne sais pas." Accepting this 
as the real name of the owner of this magnificent es- 
tate, the Englishman repeated his question from time 
to time, as fresh villas came into view, receiving uni- 
formly the same response. At length, astonished at 
such vast possessions belonging to one proprietor, he 
exclaimed, " Monsieur Je-ne-sais-pas must be a very 
rich man." And the Unknown, to whom the critics 
would introduce us, must be a man without his equal 
in the whole history of Israel. Yet he has himself 
completely vanished out of history, and left no trace 
of his existence, no memory even of the age in which 
he lived. Nay, by the strangest of all freaks of for- 
tune, a unanimous, persistent, and unvarying tradition 
has confounded this commanding spirit, this unique 
legislator, with a rude chieftain who never gave any 
laws, so far as the critics know, except in so far as he 
decided petty disputes between his followers, and 
whose only distinction is that of having led a horde of 
undisciplined nomads out of bondage into a desert 
many centuries before. 

Is it the whole history of Israel that is at fault, or is it 
only that the critics have been dreaming? Possibly 
the real Moses of history may after all have been quite 
different from the fictitious personage substituted for 



344 DR - ROBERTSON SMITH 

him by the critics. And in the adopted son of Pha- 
raoh's daughter, who intermarried with the Egyptian 
priesthood and was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, 
who was fired with an enthusiastic attachment to his 
people and their God and was inspired by the Holy 
Ghost, — the great commander and organizer who 
shaped the institutions of his nation and impressed his 
own ideas ineradicably upon their entire subsequent 
history, — we may find a rational and sober answer to 
our question, which else must remain unanswered or 
land us in the most incredible of paradoxes. 

The critics will smile incredulously at the suggestion 
of what they are pleased to call the traditional view, 
as though it were some unfounded opinion, which has 
come to be believed merely by dint of constant repe- 
tition, and which accordingly has no claim upon the 
faith of candid and honest inquirers in comparison 
with the so-called critical or scientific view, and is now 
only held in ignorance or defiance of advancing light. 
But let us understand the sort of tradition on which it 
rests. The Pentateuchal Law claims in the most un- 
ambiguous manner to have been given and recorded 
by Moses. The general character of the legislation, 
and the terms in which it is couched, accord with this 
claim. Its truth is further vouched for in the most 
direct and positive manner in the history of his trusted 
attendant and successor Joshua (i. 7, 8, viii. 31-34, xxii. 
5, xxiii. 6) ; also by xxiv. 26, which the critics with un- 
wonted clemency suffer to stand ; further by Judg. iii. 4 ; 
I.Kings ii. 3 ; II. Kings x. 31, xiv. 6, xvii. 37, xviii. 6, 12, 
xxi. 8, xxii. 8, xxiii. 24, 25, not to speak of numerous 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 345 

testimonies of later date. The history and legislation 
of the Pentateuch lies at the basis of all the subsequent 
history of the Old Testament. It is presupposed in 
the Psalms. 1 It is presupposed in the Prophets. 
Moses' authorship has the explicit sanction of our 
blessed Lord Himself. The prior existence of the 
Pentateuch is shown by its being so interwoven with all 
subsequent portions of the history and literature of 
Israel that it cannot be torn from it without the de- 
struction of the whole. It is upon this immovable 
foundation that the traditional view securely reposes. 
The tradition is imbedded in the Scriptures from first 
to last, and can only be surrendered when the inspired 

1 No prominence has been given in any of the preceding discus- 
sions to the testimony rendered by the Book of Psalms to the truth of 
the Pentateuch, and to the divine authority as well as the Mosaic origin 
of its institutions, for the simple reason that the critics exercise the 
same right of peremptory challenge in regard to unwelcome witnesses 
that Anglo-Saxon law allows in the case of jurors deemed unfriendly. 
The titles of the Psalms are set aside without ceremony ; and each 
individual Psalm is arbitrarily assigned to whatever date best suits the 
critical theory which chances to be in vogue at the time. Under the 
operation of this rule the Psalter becomes merely the hymn-book of 
the Second Temple ; the great mass of the Psalms are reckoned post- 
exilic, if not Maccabean ; and nothing is allowed to be Davidic until 
the critics have first satisfied themselves by a thorough search that it 
contains nothing capable of being used against them. In fact it has 
been discovered that the safest course is to exclude David from the 
Psalter altogether, and to deny to him any devotional composition in 
the proper sense, allowing to him only " sportful forms of uncon- 
strained mirth." "Melodies of the Temple service were borrowed 
from the joyous songs of the vintage, and so it was possible that 
David should give the pattern alike for the songs of the Sanctuary and 
for the worldly airs of the nobles of Samaria." ("The Old Testament 
in the Jewish Church," p. 205). Accordingly, any argument ex concessis 
from the Psalms is out of the question. 



346 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

volume itself is abandoned as untrustworthy, and Jesus 
ceases to be trusted as an infallible teacher. When 
progress means marching over such a precipice as 
this, sensible men will be apt to call a halt, and prefer 
to abide on the terra fir ma of tradition a little longer, 
rather than adventure themselves upon the cloudland 
which lies beyond. 

Besides Elijah and Elisha, who have already been 
spoken of, the Prophets whose work is particularly 
discussed in these Lectures are Hosea and Amos in 
the Ten Tribes, Isaiah and Micah in Judah. The aim 
of the whole is to exhibit them in their individual 
character and their mutual relations, and in their rela- 
tions to the times in which they lived. What is known 
of each Prophet is briefly sketched, and the specific 
character of his times depicted, and the bearing of 
this upon his ministry is shown; special traits are 
pointed out, which distinguish the teaching or mode 
of thought of each of these Prophets ; and the differ- 
ent aspects, under which they severally set forth the 
proximate or the ultimate future as they conceive it, 
are indicated and contrasted with one another. In 
all this there is much that is valuable and suggestive. 
The chief occasion of regret is that the bias derived 
from his critical prepossessions inclines him at every 
point to reduce the religious meaning of the Prophets 
to a minimum, to foist upon them inaccuracies with 
which they are not chargeable, and to represent them 
as in irreconcilable conflict, because of those differ- 
ences in their portraiture by which they really supple- 
ment and complete each other. 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 347 

1 

It illustrates the facility with which the drift of 
events can be comprehended after they have actually 
taken place, that Dr. Robertson Smith can see no evi- 
dence of prophetic foresight in the disclosures of 
Amos. " The most ordinary political insight, " he 
tells us (p. 131), could have seen the danger which 
threatened Israel from Assyria; " and what requires 
explanation is not so much that Amos was aware of it 
as that the rulers and people of Israel were so utterly 
blind to the impending doom." But it is obvious 
that Amos claims no political shrewdness above 
those whom he addresses. He points to no political 
causes that are at work; he makes no political de- 
ductions. It is not from this quarter that his inspira- 
tion proceeds. The one thought, that possesses his 
mind, is that of the moral causes which are at work. 
Israel has sinned and Jehovah has sent him to 
announce the penalty. The Doctor says, (p. 129,) : 
" It is not Israel's sin that brings him forward as a 
preacher of repentance; but the sound of near de- 
struction encircling the land constrains him to blow 
the alarm." Precisely the reverse is true, as appears 
from the whole tenor of the prophecy. The en- 
croachments of Assyria had not yet affected Israel. 
The Northern Kingdom had never been more pros- 
perous, and there seemed to be no reason to question 
the stability of this prosperity. Even after Assyria 
had pushed its conquests westward, until Damascus 
was overthrown, Israel's ancient rival and enemy, 
politicians still thought that Israel might be secure 
and prosperous in alliance with or in nominal subjec- 



348 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

tion to the Great King. They were chiefly divided 
upon the question which of the rival empires, Assyria 
or Egypt, was the safer ground of dependence. But 
through all the fluctuating schemes of politicians, and 
their alternate hopes and fears, the steadfast word of 
the Prophet went on to sure accomplishment. And 
so did the prediction of Hosea (i. 6, 7), which no 
degree of political insight could have dictated, that 
while Assyria should overthrow the Northern King- 
dom, its weaker sister, Judah, should be miraculously 
delivered. Their prediction can only be discredited 
by imputing to them what they do not say and what 
their language cannot be fairly interpreted to mean. 
Thus (p. 183), " To Hosea, as to Amos, the fall of 
the house of Jehu and the fall of the nation appear as 
one thing ; , both Prophets, indeed, appear to have 
looked for the overthrow of the reigning dynasty, 
not by intestine conspiracy, as actually happened, but 
at the hand of the destroying invader." 

According to the Doctor's view of the matter (p. 
184), the comparison of Hosea i. 4, with II. Kings x. 
30 " places in the strongest light the limitations that 
characterize all Old Testament revelation. It shows 
that we can look for no mechanical uniformity in the 
teaching of successive Prophets." Hosea speaks of 
" a revolution accomplished with the active participa- 
tion of older Prophets," as " the bloodshed of Jezreel, 
the treacherous slaughter of the house of Ahab." 
" Elisha saw and approved one side of Jehu's revolu- 
tion. He looked on it only as the death-blow to 
Baal-worship ; but Hosea sees another side and con- 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 349 

demns as emphatically as Elisha approved." There 
is, however, no real discrepancy between these 
Prophets, as the Doctor himself suggests in the very 
act of urging it. What Elisha approves and what 
Hosea condemns are distinct things. By divine di- 
rection Jehu executed the just judgment of God 
upon the house of Ahab ; so far he did right and was 
approved. There was, however, a converse to this, 
which is immediately added by the sacred historian 
(II. Kings x. 31), " But Jehu took no heed to walk in 
the Law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart ; 
for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which 
made Israel to sin," Jehu had been explicitly told 
(11. Kings ix. 9), by the Prophet who gave him his 
commission, that the house of Ahab was to be made 
11 like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and 
like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah," who 
were punished for the criminality of the golden 
calves. This very criminality was subsequently per- 
petuated by Jehu. From an executioner of God's 
righteous sentence he thus became an accomplice 
and participant in the crime ; and in judging the 
house of Ahab he pronounced a like doom upon 
himself. A slaughter, which found its justification 
only in its being inflicted in obedience to the declared 
will of God, ceased to be justifiable as performed by 
one who set that will at defiance (1. Kings xvi. 7; 
Deut. viii. 20). We have tacitly assumed that 
" blood " in this passage means " bloodshed " as the 
Doctor paraphrases it. It may, however, signify 
blood-guiltiness, and the sense -of the passage be that 



350 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

a guilt equivalent to that contracted by Ahab in 
Jezreel should be avenged upon the house of Jehu, 
which by following in a like course of sin justified, 
and as it were assumed, the crimes of their pred- 
ecessors. 

In order to give a more precise idea of the method 
and aim of these Lectures, we quote a summary state- 
ment (p. 229) of the relation between Isaiah and the 
Prophets of Israel, as the author conceives it. The 
errors of the passage are too obvious to require fur- 
ther correction. 

" Isaiah builds on the foundations laid by his predecessors, 
Amos and Hosea. But his treatment of the problem is more 
comprehensive and all-sided. The preaching of Amos was 
directed only to breaches of civil righteousness, and supplied 
no standard for the reformation of national worship ; it left 
even the golden calves untouched. Hosea, on the other 
hand, has a clear insight into the right moral attitude of the 
religious subject to God ; but that subject is to him the per- 
sonified nation, sinning and repenting as one man, and there- 
fore he has no practical suggestions applicable to the actual 
mixed state of society ; his prophecy leaves an unexplained 
hiatus between Israel's present sin and its future return to 
Jehovah. Isaiah, on the contrary, finds in Jehovah's holiness 
a principle equally applicable to the amendment of the state 
and the elevation of religious praxis, an ideal which supplies 
an immediate impulse to reformation, and which, though it 
cannot be fully attained without the intervention of purging 
judgments, may at least become the practical guide of those 
within Israel who are striving after better things." 

The allegation (p. 268) that Isaiah's prophecy to 
Ahaz (chs. vii., viii.) was "of the nature of a shrewd 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 351 

political forecast rather than of exceptional predic- 
tion, and, as the future actually shaped itself, his worst 
anticipations were not realized," is based on two un- 
founded assumptions, viz. : that viii. 4 describes the 
ultimate overthrow of Samaria, and that the pictured 
desolation of Judah belonged to a single campaign. 
The prediction in ch. xx. is allowed to have been 
accomplished; but he says (p. 282), "this result had 
not come about in the way that Isaiah anticipated"; 
which anticipation we learn not from the Prophet, 
but from his critic, who tells us that Isaiah had ex- 
pected the Assyrian king to press forward against 
Egypt on the fall of Ashdod. In regard to Isaiah's 
predictions of the blissful future under the forms of 
the old dispensation, we are told (p. 337) that they 
have not only " received no literal fulfilment, but it 
is impossible that the evolution of the divine purpose 
can ever again be narrowed within the limits of the 
petty world of which Judah was the centre and Egypt 
and Assyria the extremes." He objects (p. 339) to 
a figurative interpretation of such prophecies, but 
nevertheless admits (p. 342): "It is plain from the 
very freedom with which Isaiah recasts the details of 
his predictions from time to time, — adapting them 
to new circumstances, introducing fresh historical or 
poetical motives, and cancelling obsolete features in 
his older imagery, — that he himself drew a clear dis- 
tinction between mere accidental and dramatic details, 
which he knew might be modified or wholly super- 
seded by the march of history, and the unchanging 
principles of faith, which he received as a direct reve- 



352 DR. ROBERTSON SMITH 

lation from Jehovah Himself and knew to be eternal 
and invariable truth." 

Now, if the meaning of all this is simply that Isaiah 
did not understand, nor was it given to him to reveal, 
the divine plans in all their extent and fulness, this 
is readily conceded. And it is a very proper subject 
of investigation, What were the limitations of the reve- 
lation granted to him, and what is the exact concep- 
tion expressed in his words? But if " the lion which 
eats straw like the ox, the seas and rivers dried up 
to facilitate the return of the exiles to Judah," are 
" plainly figurative" (p. 303), and if the Prophet 
clearly distinguishes substance and form in employ- 
ing the symbolic institutions of the Old Testament to 
body forth the future, no correct exegesis can fasten 
upon the prophecy the inaccuracy of declaring, nor 
upon the Prophet the narrowness of supposing, that 
his picture was to be realized in the particular forms 
in which he has drawn it. These were more or less 
consciously used and accepted as figures of a reality 
more glorious, but as yet only partially disclosed and 
dimly understood ; just as the vision of the New Jeru- 
salem is to us the picture of a future whose magnifi- 
cence impresses us, but in what precise form it shall 
be realized we cannot tell. 

The " Branch of the LORD" (Isa. iv. 2) is referred 
(p. 248) to a the simple blessings of agricultural life." 
Immanuel (vii. 14 ff,, p. 271) was simply an ordinary 
child, born at the time, and gave no such pledge to 
Ahaz of the stability of his royal house as an allusion 
to the promised and expected Son of David might 



ON THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. 353 

have done. " It is by no means clear" (p. 306) 
whether the child with the remarkable names (ix. 6) 
is " one person or a race of sovereigns." At any rate 
no divine person is intended, for " there is no reason 
to think that they denote anything metaphysical." 
And Isa. ii. 2-4 " is far from implying a world-wide 
sovereignty of Israel" (p. 309). Micah, it seems 
(p. 290), did not predict the captivity; " thou shalt 
come even to Babylon" (iv. 10) is a gloss. So, while 
Isaiah is represented (pp. 259, 260) as declaring " the 
inviolability of Jerusalem," and Jeremiah the " cap- 
tivity of Jerusalem," Micah is made to affirm, in con- 
tradistinction from both, and contrary to what actually 
occurred, that the city shall be taken, and its popula- 
tion driven forth into the open field ; " there, and not 
within her proud ramparts, Jehovah will grant her 
deliverance from her enemies." " Jehovah's right- 
eousness," as declared by the Prophets, is limited 
(p. 245) to " kingly righteousness," which "aims 
at, not the transformation of the hearts of men, but 
the removal of injustice in the state." 

And thus by emptying words of their meaning, 
by attributing to the Prophets ideas which they never 
entertained, by representing them as in collision 
where there is nevertheless entire harmony, and by 
the application of the potent wand of criticism in a 
few obstinate cases where less summary measures 
would not avail, the revelation of God through the 
Prophets is made out to be a very different thing 
from that which it actually is. 

2 3 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS 

QUOTED OR REFERRED TO. 



genesis. Page 

iii. 15 236 

v. 24 303 

vii. 11 305 

xii. 6, 7 161 

xiii. 18 164 

xiv. 22 270 

xvii. 1 270 

xviii. 1, 2 271 

xviii. 10 303 

xviii. 26 311 note 

xix. 11 303 

xix. 24 270 

xx. 13 311 note 

xxi. 31, 33 162 

xxi. 33 270 

xxiv. 3 270 

xxiv. 32 282 note 

xxvi. 23-25 162 

xxvii. 7 96 

xxviii. 10 ff 165 

xxviii. 12, 13 270 

xxxi. 19, 30 271 

xxxi. 19, 32 21^ note 

xxxi. 49, 54 159 

xxxii. 1, 2 303 

xxxii. 2 159 

xxxii. 24. 30 271 

xxxiii. 18, 20 162 

xxxv. 2 271, 276 note 

xxxv. 4 162 

xxxv. 9 ff 166 

xxxvii. 14 164 

xxxix. 1 106 note 

xlix. 10 83, 237 

xlix. 25 270 

EXODUS. 

i. 11 68 

i. 14 68 

ii. 15 58 note 

iii. 1 279 



exodus {continued). Page 

iii 2 279 

iii. 5 94 

iii. 14 43 

iii. 18 119 

iv. 6 303 note 

iv. 10 ff 61 note 

iv. 24-26 61 note 

iv. 27 279 

v. 7 ff 68 

vi. 12, 30 96 

xii. 3 ff 118 note 

xii. 9 119 note 

xii. 25 118 

xiv. 21 303 

xv. 25 303 

xvi. 12 303 

xvii. 14 49, 50 

xvii 15 95 

xviii. 13-16 58 note 

xviii. 19 313 

xviii. 21, 22 70 

xix., xx 279 

xix. 3-8 283 note 

xix. 3-19 283 note 

xix. 20-25 284 note 

xx. ... 282, 285 note, 287, 296 

xx.-xxiii 324 

xx. 1-20 283 note 

xx. 2 299 note 

xx. 4 294 

xx. 5 113 

xx. 6 299 note 

xx. 10 299 note 

xx. 11 2:)9 note 

xx. 21, 24-26 284 note 

xx. 22 ff 61, 310 

xx. 23 52, 113 

xx. 24 . 74 note, 95, 131, 302, 310 

xx. 24, 25 74 

xxi.-xxiii. . . .50, 51, 284 note 
(bis), 322, 340 



35^ 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



exodus {continued). Page 

xxi. 6 . 70 

xxi. 12-14 76 note 

xxi. 13 , . 311 note 

xxi. 14 311 note 

xxii. 5, 6 68 

xxii. 8, 9 70 

xxii. 20 106 note 

xxii. 21-24 70 

xxii. 28 70, 304, 331 

xxii. 29 68 

xxii. 30 74, 75, 118 

xxiii. 2, 3, 9 70 

xxiii. 10, 11 68 

xxiii. 12 68 

xxiii. 12 if 283 

xxiii. 12-33 52 

xxiii. 14 ff 88 note 

xxiii. 14-18 118 

xxiii. 15, 16 68 

xxiii. 16 133 

xxiii. 17, 19 76 

xxiii. 18 . 287 note 

xxiii. 19 . 68 

xxiii. 20 ff 101 

xxiii. 24 106 note, 121 

xxiv. 3 51, 320 note 

xxiv. 3-8 . . ' . . . .284 note 
xxiv. 4 . . .49, 51, 74, 121, 310 

xxiv. 8 51 

xxiv. 12-14 .283 note 

xxv. ff 306 

xxv. 10 ff 88 

xxv. 10-22 66 

xxv. 21 88 

xxv. 21, 22 . . . -. . . . 281 

xxv. 22 88 

xxv. 30 140 

xxvii.-xxxi 81 note 

xxvii. Iff 74 

xxvii.2 307 

xxvii. 20 90 

xxviii. 6 92 note 

xxviii. 30 67 

xxviii. 31 ff 92 note 

xxix. 4 90 note 

xxix. 30 81 note 

xxix. 36, 37 131 

xxix. 38-41 303 

xxx. 8 90 

xxx. 10 .134 

xxx. 16 131 

xxxi. 2ff ....... 68 

xxxi. 10 81 note 

xxxi. 18 283 note 



exodus (contimted). Page 

xxxii. . . . 283 note, 291, 292 

xxxii. 4 264 note 

xxxii. 19 282 

xxxii. 27, 35 . 100 

xxxii. 30 ff 100 

xxxiii. 1 .... 284 note (bis) 

xxxiii. 1-6 57 note 

xxxiii. 1-11 283 note 

xxxiii. 3 . 58 note, 151, 284 note 
xxxiii. 4 ff ....... 100 

xxxiii. 7 ... 58 note, 100, 102 

xxxiii. 7, 9, 11 58 note 

xxxiii. 7-11 57 note 

xxxiii. 9 ff 313 

xxxiii. 11 58 note 

xxxiv. . 282 (bis), 284 and note, 
285 note, 287, 322 

xxxiv. 1 52, 282 

xxxiv. 4 282, 284 note 

xxxiv. 5 284 note (bis) 

xxxiv. 6 284 note 

xxxiv. 6, 7 282 

xxxiv. 6-9 284 note 

xxxiv. 9 .... 282, 284 note 
xxxiv. 10 ... . 283, 284 note 
xxxiv. 10-13 -. . .' . .285 note 

xxxiv. 10-26 52 

xxxiv. 11-26 283 

xxxiv. 12 118 

xxxiv. 12, 13 285 note 

xxxiv. 13 121 

xxxiv. 14-26 285 note 

xxxiv. 15, 16 . . . 106 note, 113 

xxxiv. 17 323 note 

xxxiv. 18-20 75 

xxxiv. 19, 25 . . . . . . 118 

xxxiv. 21 . . 68 

xxxiv. 22 . . 87 note (bis), 133, 

287 note 

xxxiv. 25 287 note 

xxxiv. 27 ...... 49, 282 

xxxiv. 27, 28 52 

xxxiv. 28 . 88, 281, 282 and note, 

285 note (bis), 304 

xxxiv. 29-35 . . . . . 285 note 

xxxv. 25, 26 68 

xxxv. 30 ff 68 

xxxvi. ff 306 

xl 58 note 

xl. 20 281 

LEVITICUS. 

i 58 note 

i.-vii 81 note 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



357 



leviticus (continued). Page 

i. 5, 8, 11 80 

i. 6-8 303 

ii. 2 80 

ii. 10, 11 309 

ii. 14 . . . 304 note 

iii. 1 ff 93 note 

iii. 2 . ■ 80 

iv. 12, 21 60 

v. 15-19 309 note 

vi., vii 287 note 

vi. 11 60 

vi. 16-18 309 

vii. 10 309 

vii. 28 ff 93 note 

vii. 30 ff 93 

vii. 37. 38 54 

viii.-x 81 note 

viii. 2 ff 60 

ix. 16 303 

ix. 24 . . . . 303 

x. 12 309 

x. 15 93 

x. 19, 20 ....... . 99 

xiii., xiv. ....... 77 

xiii. 2 80 

xiii. 46 60, 305, 309 

xiv. 3 60 

xiv. 7, 8 303 

xiv. 8 60 (bis) 

xiv. 34 59, 118 

xiv. 34 ff GO 

xvi 81 note, 134 

xvi. 8 339 

xvi. 21, 22 . . . . 60, 135 note 

xvi. 26, 28 60 

xvi. 32 81 note 

xvii. 3 60 

xvii. 3 ff 77 

xvii. 3-7 157 

xvii. 4, 5 78 note 

xvii. 7 113 

xviii. 3 59 

xviii. 17 89 note 

xix. 2 100 

xix. 5 96 

xix. 18 100 

xix. 23 59 

xix. 29 . • 89 note 

xix. 36 64, 117 note 

xx. 3 117 note 

xx. 5, 6 113 

xx. 11 117 note 

xxi. 1 80 

xxii. 27 V5 



leviticus (continued). Page 

xxiii. 3 304 

xxiii. 10 118 

xxiii. 14 304 note 

xxiii. 26-32 134 

xxiii. 34 308 

xxiii. 42 337 note 

xxiii. 44 54 

xxiv. 8, 9 140 

xxiv. 10, 14, 23 60 

xxv. 2 59, 118 

xxv. 8-10 134 

xxv. 9 134 

xxv. 23 304 

xxv. 33, 34 83 note 

xxv. 39, 40 304 

xxvi 101, 183 

xxvi. 1 121 

xxvi. 5 117 note 

xxvi. 13 64 

xxvi. 14 ff 324 

xxvi. 22 304 

xxvi. 29 305 

xxvi. 30 324 

xxvi. 40 ff 101 

xxvi. 46 54 

xxvii. 29 .... 89 note, 304 
xxvii. 34 54 

NUMBERS. 

iii. 3 80 

iv 129 

iv. 5, 20 141 note 

iv. 15 92 note 

iv. 15, 20 92 

iv. 15-21 59 note 

v. 2 305 

v. 2-4 60 

v. 7, 8 309 note 

v. 10 309 note 

v. 23 339 

vi. 1-5 89 note 

vi. 2, 3 117 note 

viii. 22 93 

x. 2 ff 60 

x. 8 80 

x. 21 59 note 

x. 33 . . . 59 note, 88, 283 note 

x. 35 89 

xi. 1 303 

xi. 5 68 

xi. 16 70 

xi. 24, 26, 30 58 note 

xi. 26-29 98 

xi. 27 58 note 



358 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



numbers {continued). Page 

xii 77 

xii. 3 61 note 

xii. 4, 5 58 note 

xii. 10 ' . . 303 

xii. 13 303 

xii. 14, 15 60 

xiii. 32, 33 117 note 

xiv. 4 64 

xiv. 11 if 100 

xiv. 33 113 

xiv. 44 88 

xv. 41 64 

xvi 77 

xvi. 35 303 

xvii. 2 339 

xviii. 2 130 

xviii. 4 130 

xviii. 7 134 

xviii. 12, 13 304 

xviii. 17 84 note 

xviii. 18 84 note 

xviii. 20 . < 77 

xix. 3, 4 60 

xix. 3, 7, 9 .60 

xix. 14, 16 60 

xix. 14, 22 117 note 

xx. 5 ........ 68 

xx 8 303 

xx. 12 61 note 

xxv. 3, 5 ...... 117 note 

xxv. 11-13 155 

xxvii. 17 304 

xxvii. 21 67 

xxvii. 58, 59 92 note 

xxviii. 11 304 

xxviii. 19, 24 . . . 118 note, 124 

xxix. 7-11 134 

xxix. 12 308 

xxix. 13 ff 125 

xxxi. 27 56 note 

xxxii. 2 70 

xxxiii. 2 49 

xxxiv. 8 117 note 

xxxv. 10 ff 311 note 

xxxv. 30 304 

xxxvi. 1 70 

xxxvi. 8, 9 304 

DEUTERONOMY. 
1. 1 161 

i. 43 . 65 note 

iv. 23-26 151 

iv. 29 .... . .... 104 



Deuteronomy {continued). Page 

iv. 30 323 

v 282, 287 

vii. 15 64 

viii.ll . .138 

viii. 20 ... 349 

ix. 21 293 

ix. 23 65 note 

x. 1-5 88 

x. 1-8 66 

x. 4, 5 . . . 281 

x. 6 79 

x. 8 82, 89 

x. 8, 9 77 

xi. 6 77 

xi. 10 68 

xi. 16, 17 303 

xi. 24 . . 311 note 

xii.-xxvi 50, 53 

xii. 1 138 

xii. 1, 8, 9 59 

xii. 2 ...... . 311 note 

xii. 2-5 157 

xii. 5 . . . 74, 243, 267, 276 note 

xii. 5 ff 155 

xii. 5, 10 ff ...... . 60 

xii. 6, 11 . .^ . . \ . . . 118 

xii. 8, 9 .118 

xii. 9 59 

xii. 15 77, 85 note 

xii 27 118 

xiii. 5 89 note 

xiii. 5, 10 64 

xiii. 9 304 

xiii. 10 304 

xiii. 12 ff. , 89 note 

xiv. 23 ff 60 

xiv. 24 ....... 84 note 

xiv. 28 117 note 

xiv. 29 79 

xv. 4, 7 59 

xv. 5, 6 . 70 

xv. 19 118 

xv. 19, 20 .:.... 84 note 

xv. 20 . 75 

xvi. 2 118 and note 

xvi. 2, 6 ff 60 

xvi. 7 . . .60, 118 note, 119 note 

xvi. 13 ff 308 

xvi. 14 82 note 

xvi. 18 71 

xvi. 19 65 note 

xvi. 20 70 

xvi. 21, 22 121 

xvi. 22 121 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



359 



Deuteronomy (continued). Page 

xvii. 5 304 (bis) 

xvii. 6, 7 304 

xvii. 8-12 64, 71 

xvii. 9, 18 79 

xvii. 12 . . . .89 note, 116 note 
xvii. 14 .... 59, 65 note, 145 

xvii. 14 ff 64 

xvii. 15 65 note 

xvii. 15, 16 64 

xvii. 18 108 

xviii. 1 . . . . 78, 79, 82 note 

xviii. Iff 82 note 

xviii. 1, 2 77 

xviii. 3 85 note, 133 

xviii. 3-5 78, 82 note 

xviii. 4, 5 305 

xviii. 6 79 

xviii. 6-8 78, 308 

xviii. 8 . . 82 note 

xviii. 15 117 note 

xviii. 15 ff 101 

xviii. 18 57 note 

xviii. 21, 22 . . .. . . . . 181 

xviii. 22 304 

xix. 1 59 

xix. Iff 311 note 

xix. 8, 9 70 

xix. 14 .... 59 note, 116 note 

xix. 15 304 

xix. 17 ....... . 64 

xx. 1 64 

xx. 10-15 63 

xx. 16-18 63 

xx. 17 89 note 

xxi. 1, 23 59 

xxi. 17 304 

xxii. 21 89 note 

xxii. 30 117 note 

xxiii. 3, 4, 7, 8 63 

xxiii. 7 64 

xxiii. 21-23 89 note 

xxiv. 1 339 

xxiv. 8 79, 309 

xxiv. 8, 9 77 

xxiv. 9, 18, 22 . 64 

xxiv. 13, 15 70 

xxiv. 16 108 

xxv. 4 '. 117 note 

xxv. 6 89 note 

xxv. 13 ff 117 note 

xxv. 17-19 63 

xxvi. 11, 12 82 note 

xxvi. 12 117 note 

xxvi. 14 117 note 



Deuteronomy (continued). Page 

xxvii. 3 53 

xxvii. 5, 6 310 

xxvii. 9 79, 81 note 

xxvii. 9, 12, 14 79 

xxvii. 17 116 note 

xxviii 101, 183 

xxviii. 15 ff 324 

xxviii. 27, 60 323 

xxviii. 30, 39 . . . . 117 note 

xxviii. 53 305 

xxviii. 60 64 

xxviii. 68 116 note 

xxix. 5 303 

xxix. 23 324 

xxx. 2 323 

xxx. 3 117 note 

xxxi. 9 52, 81 note 

xxxi. 9, 22, 24 49 

xxxi. 9, 25, 26 66 

xxxi. 9, 26 107 

xxxi. 24 54 

xxxi. 24-26 53 

xxxii. 37, 38 89 note 

xxxii. 39 305 

xxxiii 279, 316 

xxxiii. 1 279 

xxxiii. 2-5 280 

xxxiii. 8, 10 82, 316 

xxxiii. 8-11 78 

xxxiii. 18, 19 163 

JOSHUA. 

i. 7, 8 107, 344 

iii. 3 80 note, 92 note 

iv. 19 166 

iv. 23 303 

v. 2 ff 166 

v. 5 ff 101 

v. 15 94 

vi. 6 92 note 

viii. 30. 31 310 

viii. 31 107 

viii. 31-34 344 

viii. 33 .... 80 note, 92 note 

ix. 27 128 note 

xiii. 26 160 

xviii. 1 87 

xviii. 9 339 

xix. 50 Ill note 

xix. 51 87 

xx. 7 162 

xx. 8 160 

xxi 82 note 



360 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 



joshua (continued). Page 

. 4 ff 80 note 

.13 164 

.16 83' note, 92 

.32 160 

.38 160 

i. 5 344 

i. 8 57 note 

i. 26 ff 95 

ii. 6 344 

v. ....... 316, 340 

v. 1 162 

v. 14 276 note 

v. 14, 23, 26 162 

v. 19 151 

v. 25, 26 340 

v. 26 . . . . . 107, 316, 344 

JUDGES. 
91 

.17 89 note 

i. 1 ff . 101 

i. 1-5 95 

i. 7 . 102 

i. 11-19 ......... 97 

4 138, 344 

... 97 

... 97 

... 166 

... 97 

... 101 

. . . 160 

... 296 

... 279 

... 339 

... 101 

. . . 165 

... 95 

... 95 

... 96 

... 95 

... 339 



ii. 9 

ii. 11, 30 . . . 

ii. 19 . . . . 

v. 3 

v. 4 

v. 10 

v 

v. 4, 5 .... 

v. 14 

vi. 8 

vi. 20, 21, 24, 25 ff 
vi. 20-22 . . . 
vi. 24 . . . . 
vi. 25 . . . . 
vi. 25 ff . . . . 
viii. 14 . . . . 



viii. 27 138,165 

viii. 28 97 

ix. 4, 27, 46 161 

ix. 6 162 

ix. 27 • .88 note 

x. 14 89 note 

x. 17 . 160 

xi. 11 96, 160 

xi. 13 ff 89 note 

xi. 35, 36 ...... 89 note 

xiii. 4, 5, 14 89 note 

xiii. 16 ff ....... 95 

xvi. 17 89 note 



XV11.-XX1. 

xvii. 2 
xvii. 3 
xvii. 5 
xvii. 5, 12 
xvii. 7 
xvii. 7-9 . 
xviii. 14 ff 
xviii. 30 . 



judges (continued). Page 

. 89 
106 note 
264 note 

. 138 
106 note 

. 92 

. 91 

117 note 

. 264 note (bis) 



xviii. 30, 31 . . . . . 264 note 

xviii. 31 87 

xix. 1 91 

xix. 18 87 

xix. 23, 24 89 note 

xx. 1 .... 89 note, 96, 163 

xx. 6 89 note 

xx. 6, 10 89 note 

xx. 12 163 

xx. 13 89 note 

xx. 18, 26, 27 ... . 164, 166 

xx. 18, 26, 31 88 

xx. 27 88 (bis), 281 

xx. 31 88 

xxi. 2 . 88 

xxi. 4 ( . 89, 96, 164 

xxi. 10, 13 ..... . 89 note 

xxi. 11 89 note 

xxi. 12 89 

xxi. 17 89 note 

xxi. 19 88 and note 

xxi. 21 87 note 

I. SAMUEL. 

1 92 

3 .' .' .' .' .' .' .' '. 91 (bis) 

3, 9 . 80 

7 90 

9 90 note 

11 89 note 

20, 21 87 note 

22 ... 139 

24 ... 90 

93 



11 



11, 18 . . . . . . .79 note 

12 ff . 93 

13 96 

14,22,29 91 

14,29 139 

18 92 note, 106 note 

22 90 note 

27, 28 91 

29 91, 139 

29 ff 139 

30 ff 155 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



361 



I. samuel, (continued). Page 

ii. 36 318 

iii. 1 79 note 

iii. 3 90 

iii. 11 ft 139 

iii. 15 90 note 

iii. 20, 21 139 

iv. 1 279 

iv. 3 89 

iv. 4 90, 139, 148 

iv. 11 102 

vi. 13 141 

vi. 14, 18 S3 note 

vi. 15 92, 128 

vi. 19 92, 141 note 

vii. 1 103, 106 note 

vii. 2 103, 142 

vii. 3 104 

vii. 5, 9 163 

vii. 6 164 

vii. 9, 17 105 note 

vii. 12 279 

vii. 13-17 143 note 

vii. 16 166, 311 note 

vii. 17 140, 164 

viii 143 note, 144 

viii. ff 143 note 

viii. 3 65 note 

viii. 5 6b note 

viii. 7 145 

viii. 7, 8 65 note 

viii. 19, 20 146 

ix. 12 164 

ix. 12, 13 105 note 

ix. 13 104 

x. 3 105, 166 

x. 5 105 

x. 8 ...... 105 note, 166 

x. 17 163 

x. 18, 19 65 note 

x. 24 65 note 

x. 25 339 

xi. 14, 15 .... 105 note, 166 

xii. 14 65 note 

xiii. 8, 13 152 

xiii. 8-14 105 

xiii. 9 ft 166 

xiv. 3 140 

xiv. 18 103 note 

xiv. 35 105 note 

xiv. 47-52 . . • . . 143 note 

xv. 15 ft 166 

xv. 15, 21 .... . 105 note 

xv. 22 100 

xv. 22, 23 151 



I. samuel (continued). Page 

xv. 23 276 note 

xv. 26 147 

xv. 35 147 

xvi. 2 152 

xvi. 2 ft 164 

xvi. 2-5 105 note 

xix. 16 276 note 

xx. 6 105, 164 

xxi. 1, 6 103 

xxi. 6 140 

xxii. 11 140 

xxii. 19 140 

xxii. 20 91 

xxiii. 18 160 

xxv. 1 143 note 

xxvi. 19 96 

xxx. 24, 25 56 note 

xxx. 31 311 note 

II. SAMUEL. 

ii. 1 164 

ii. 4 164 

ii. 8 160 

iii. 3 106 note 

v. 3 164 

v. 12 153 

vi. 1 148 

vi. 2 148 

vi. 3 92 note 

vi. 6, 7, 13 92 note 

vi. 7 92 

vi. 13 106 note 

vi. 14 106 note 

vi. 17 154 

vi. 18 106 note 

vi. 21 148 

vii 154 

vii. 6 90 note 

viii. 11 154 

viii. 15-18 144 note 

viii. 16, 17 339 

viii. 17 154 

viii. 18 106 note 

ix 144 note 

x 144 »<><«? 

xi. 13 282 note 

xi. 14, 15 339 

xiv. 24 147 

xv. 7-9 164 

xv. 24 128 

xv. 24, 29 92 note 

xv. 24-29, 35 154 

xvii. 24 160 

xix. 24 ff 144 note 



[62 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS, 



ii. SAMUEii (continued). Page 

xx. 23 127 note 

xx. 23-26 lte note 

xx. 24, 25 339 

xx. 25 . . 154 

xxii 110 

xxiv. 16-18 94 

I. KINGS. 

i. 50, 51 307 

ii. 3 108, 138, 344 

ii. 26, 27 155 

ii. 27 91 

ii. 28 . 307 

ii. 35 ' . 130 note 

iii. 1 . Ill note 

iii. 2 . . . . 105, 106 note, 155 

iii. 4 164 

iii. 6 160 

iv. 3 339 

vi., vii 306 

vi. 5 90 note 

vi. 12 138 

vi. 38 . . 308 

vii. 51 154 

viii. 2 308 

viii. 3 92 note 

viii. 4 ... '. SO note, 128, 308 

viii. 6-9, 21 298 

viii. 9, 21 281 

viii. 10, 11 306 

viii. 53, 56 108 

viii. 62 . 131 

viii. 63 ..... . 106 note 

viii. 64 309 

ix. 4, 6 138 

ix. 15 lllnote 

ix. 25 106 note, 133 

xi. 7, 8 . 155 

xi. 29 ff 265 

xi. 33 267 

xi. 33, 38 ....... 138 

xi. 40 . . . . 267 

xii. 1, 25 162 

xii. 2 264 note 

xii. 25 Ill note 

xii. 26 ff ........ 108 

xii. 28, 29 264 note 

xii. 29 166 

xii. 31 316 

xii. 32, 33 .308 

xiii. 2 265 

xiii. 32 265 

xiii. 32,33 155 



i. kings (continued). Page 

xiii. 33 108, 316 

xiv. 8, 9 108 

xiv. 9 265, 271 

xiv. 10, 11 271 

xiv. 22-24 ....... 155 

xv. 14 155 

xv. 17 ...... Ill note 

xvi. 1, 2 265 

xvi. 2-4 271 

xvi. 7 349 

xvi. 25, 26 ....... 272 

xvi. 31-33 269 

xvii. 1 303 

xvii. 6 303 

xvii. 12, 14, 24 . . . 270 note 
xvii. 14 . . ... . . . 303 

xviii. 13 269 

xviii. 17 269 

xviii. 18 272 

xviii. 21, 24 271 

xviii. 23, 33 303 

xviii. 24, 38 303 

xviii. 27 271 

xviii. 29, 36 .... 133, 303 

xviii. 30 165 

xviii. 31 .271 

xviii. 36 . . 119 note, 152, 164, 270 

xviii. 40 304 

xix. 3 ff 270 note 

xix. 6 303 

xix. 8 273,304 

xix. 10 119 note 

xix. 14 165, 269 

xix. 15 272 

xx. 42 ........ 304 

xxi. 3 ........ 304 

xxi. 8, 9 339 

xxi. 10 ........ 304 

xxi. 21-24 271 

xxi. 22 294 

xxii 266 

xxii. 17 . . 304 

xxii. 28 . 304 

xxii. 43 155 



If. KINGS. 

. 10, 12 303 

i. 3 ff 303 

i. 8, 14 303 

i. 9 304 

i. 21 . . 303 

i. 23, 24 . . . . . . . . 295 

i. 24 304 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



363 



II. kings (continued). Page 

iii 266 note 

ii. 2, 3 294 

ii. 10, 13 295 note 

ii. 13, 14 295 

ii. 17 303 

ii. 20 303 

v. 1 304 

v. 16 303 

v. 23 304 

v. 42 304 

v. 5-7 339 

v. 7 305 

v. 10 303 

v. 27 303 

vi. 17 303 

vi. 18 303 

vi. 23, 24 143 

vi. 28, 29 305 

vii. 2, 19 305 

vii. 3 305 

viii. 12, 13 272 

ix. 9 294,349 

x. 1 339 

x. 28, 29 267 

x. 29 . . . 108 

x. 30 348 

x. 31 344, 349 

x. 32 272 

xi. 4 127 note 

xi. 12 108 

xii. 3 . . 155 

xii. 7, 10 133 

xii. 10 308, 339 

xii. 16 309 

xiii. 3, 22 272 

xiii. 6 293 

xiv. 4 155 

xiv. 6 108, 344 

xiv. 22 Ill note 

xv. 4 155 

xv. 5 309 

xv. 35 155 

xvi. 13, 15 309 

xvi. 15 133 

xvii. 9 155 

xvii. 13 266 

xvii. 37 344 

xviii. 2 231 note 

xviii. 4 107 

xviii. 4, 22 330 

xviii. 6 108 

xviii. 6, 12 344 

xviii. 12 108 

xviii. 13 231 note 



11. kings (continued). Page 

xviii. 18 339 

xviii. 22 156 

xix. 34 120 

xx. 16-18 182 

xxi. 3 155 

xxi. 4 ff 128 note 

xxi. 7-9 108 

xxi. 8 344 

xxii. 4 133 

xxii. 4, 8 308 

xxii. 8 107, 344 

xxiii. 3, 25 138 

xxiii. 4 133, 308 

xxiii. 9 156, 308 

xxiii. 13 155 

xxiii. 24, 25 107, 344 

xxv. 18 308 

xxv. 25 133 

I. CHRONICLES. 

iv. 41 42, 43 .... 63 note 

vi. 8 130 note 

vi. 28 92 

vi. 53 130 note 

ix. 2 ff 129 

xiii. 3 103 

xv. 2 79 note 

xvi. 39 155 

xviii. 17 106 note 

xxii. 5 154 

xxiii. 25, 26 154 

xxiv. 3 . . . 91, 130 note, 155 
xxvii. 17 130 note 

n. CHRONICLES. 

i. 3, 13 164 

v. 5 80 note 

v. 7-10 298 

vi. 11, 41 298 

vii. 9 132 

viii. 2 Ill note 

viii. 13 133 

xiv. 3-5 156 

xiv. 13 160 

xvii. 6 156 

xix. 5, 8 71 

xxiii. 4 130 

xxiii. 18 80 note 

xxiv. 6 35 note 

xxvii. 6 160 

xxx. 17 130 

xxx. 19 100 

xxx. 27 80 note 

xxxi. 20 160 



3<H 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



ii. chronicles {continued). Page 

xxxiii. 12, 23 160 

xxxiii. 17 ...... . 156 

xxxiv. 2, 3 227 

xxxv. 3 299 

xxxv. 13 .... 119 note, 130 

xxxv. 21 208 

xxxvi. 20 39 

xxxvi.22 239 

EZRA. 

i. 1 239 

i. 4 311 note 

ii. 36 ff 129 

ii. 58 128 note 

ii. 63 . . . 67 

iii. 7 196 note 

vii. 7, 24 129 

viii. 15 ff 129 

viii. 20 128 note 

ix. 5 135 note 

ix. 11 57 note 

NEHEMIAH. 

i. 4 160 

vii. 39 ff 83 note, 129 

vii. 65 . . . ,. .... 67 

viii.-x 132 

viii. 1-14 1,14 

ix. 13 280 

x. 28, 29 128 note 

x. 29 . 127 

x. 32 131 

xi. 20 . 78 

xii. 1-9 129 

xii.45 ........ 127 

ESTHER. 

i. 3,14, 18 228 

i. 19 228 

JOB. 

xxxvii. 6 42 

PSALMS. 

i.-xli. . . 109 

iii. 4 . 110 

v ,109 

vi 109 

ix 110 

x 110 



psalms {continued). Page 

xi. 4 110 

xi. 6 . 110 

xiv 109 

xv 110 

xv. 1 . . . 110 

xviii 110 

xviii. 6 110 

xviii. 10 110 

xviii. 22 . . . . . - . . . 110 

xix. . .110 

xix. 7 108 

xix. 7-10 ........ 110 

xx. 145 

xxi . 145 

xl 110, 111 note, 112 

xl. 1, 5 112 note 

xl. 6 .... 110, 111 and note 

xl. 7, 8 112 

1. 8-15 Ill note 

li. . . . . . . . . . Ill note 

li. 16, 17 . . . . . . Ill note 

lxviii. 8, 17 279 

lxviii. 16 ff 148 

lxxviii. 5 ....... 108 

lxxviii. 56-61 140 

lxxviii. 60, 68 . . . . . . 102 

lxxviii. 61 ff . . . . 264 note 

lxxxvii. 4 221 

xcix. 6 153 

ciii. 7 115 note 

cxvi. 9 96 

canticles. 
vi. 13 . . . 160 

ISAIAH. 

i. 10 215, 319, 338 

i. 11 ff . . 99, 111 note, 118, 121 

i. 11-20 241 

i. 15 121 

i. 24 ff ........ 220 

ii. 2 . . . 123 

ii. 2, 3 120 

ii. 2-4 ...... 241, 353 

ii. 3 120 

ii. 6, 7 65 note 

iii. 10, 11 220 

iv. 2 .352 

iv. 5 120 

v. 19 .185 

v. 26-30 183 

vi. Iff 1-0 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



365 



Isaiah (continued). Page 

vi. 13 220 

vii. 3 ff 61 

vii. 5-8 183 

vii. 7, 8 232 

vii. 14 if 352 

vii. 15, 16 232 

vii. 16 232 

viii. 1 50, 339 

viii. 2 117 note 

viii. 4 351 

vii., viii 350 

ix. 6 237 

x. 1 338 

x. 5-34 183 

x. 19 339 

x. 20-22 220 

x. 21 237 

x. 24-34 213 

x. 32 120 

xi. 9 157 

xi. 14 198 

xi. 15 214 

xii. 6 157 

xiv. 31 186 

xvii. 8 ........ 120 

xvii. 12-14 .213 

xviii. 7 157 

xix. 19 120 

xix. 21 121 

xix. 23 . 214 

xix. 23-25 221 

xix. 25 245 

xx .351 

xx. 4 213 

xxiii 188, 194 

xxiii. 6, 7, 12 194 

xxiii. 15-18 195 

xxiii. 18 221 

xxiv. 23 157 

xxv. 10 198 

xxvii. 9 120 

xxvii. 13 157 

xxviii. 16 157 

xxix. 1, 8 157 

xxix. 13 121 

xxx. Iff 64 

xxx. 8 50, 339 

xxx. 9, 10 319 

xxx. 29 157 

xxx. 31 ff 213 

xxxi. 1 64 

xxxi. 4, 9 157 

xxxi. 8, 9 213 

xxxiii. 20 120 



ISAIAH (continued). Page 

xxxiv 199 note 

xxxvi., xxxvii. . . . 231 note 

xxxvi. 1 231 note 

xxxvi. 7 156 

xxxviii., xxxix. . . . 231 note 

xxxviii. 1 231 note 

xxxviii. 5 231 note 

xxxviii. 6 231 note 

xxxix. 5-7 232 note 

xxxix. 6 232 

xl.-lxvi 237 

xl. 3 146 

xli. 8 243 

xlii. 5 115 note 

xliii. 9-12 181 

xlviii. 21 214 

xlviii. 22 220 

liii. 8, 9, 10, 11 238 

lv. 3 238 

lvi. 3 245 

lvi. 3-8 221 

lviii. 6 134 

lxi. Iff 134 

lxiii. 1-6 63 

lxvi. 1-3 127, 242 

lxvi. 23 242 

JEREMIAH. 

ii. 18, 36 64 

iii. 2 157 

iii. 16 243, 299 

vii. 12 140 

vii. 12, 14 102 

vii. 12-14 243 

vii. 14 221 

vii. 21 ff 118 

vii. 22 91 note, 110 

vii. 31 157 

viii. 3 311 note 

xi. 3 ff 221 

xii. 16 221 

xv. 1 153 

xvii. 1-3 157 

xvii. 15 185 

xxiv 221 

xxiv. 9 311 note 

xxv. 11 195 

xxv. 11, 12 209, 239 

xxv. 12, 13 183 

xxv. 22 195 

xxvi. 6 102, 243 

xxvi. 6, 9 140 

xxvii. 3 198 



366 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



jeremiah (continued). Page 

xxvii. 7 ....... . 39 

xxviii. ... * ... . 234 

xxviii. 9 181 

xxix. 10 . . 239 

xxix. 14 311 note 

xxxi. 31 ff ....... 243 

xxxi. 32, 33 299 

xxxv. 2, 4 90 note 

xxxvi. 4 ff 61 

xl. 12 311 note 

xl. 14 198 

xli. 2, 15 198 

xliii. 2 ff 126 

xliii. 8-13 200 

xliv. 12-14 ....... 200 

xliv. 15 ff 126 

xliv. 29, 30 201, 202 

xlv. 5 311 note 

xlvi. 2 195 

xlvi. 13-28 200 

xlvi. 26 202 

xlvii. 2 . * 186 

xlviii. 47 63 

xlix. 6 63 

xlix. 17, 18 63 

xlix. 23-27 197 

1., li . . .39, 183 

1.1 183 

li. 59-64 183 

EZEKIEL. 

i 244 

vi. 3, 6 . 157 

viii. 3 ff ...... . 128 note 

xi 221 

xi. 15 245 

xi. 16 . 243 

xi. 23 243 

xvi. 16 157 

xvi. 53, 55, 61 215 

xvi. 53-61 244 

xvii 244 

xvii. 22, 23 123 

xx. 7, 8 ..... . 276 note 

xx. 27-29 157 

xxi. 20 198 

xxiii 244 

xxiii. 3 276 note 

xxv. 14 .199 

xxv. 15-17 185 

xxvi-xxviii 188 

xxvi. 10 194 

xxvi. 12 194 



ezekiel (continued). Page 

xxviii. 24-26 197 

xxix. 10, 11 210 

xxix. 11-16 . 200 

xxix. 16 211 

xxix. 17-21 203 

xxix. 18-20 193 

xxxiii. 21 199 note 

xxxiv. 12 311 note 

xxxv 199 note 

xxxvi. 5 199 note 

xxxvii. Iff 124 

xxxix. 9 ff ....... 124 

xl.-xlviii 122 

xl. 1 134 

xl. 2 123 

xl. 39 110 

xlii. 16 ff . 123 

xliii. 2-4 123 

xliii. 18 ff 131 

xliv. 5 ff 128 

xliv. 7 130 

xliv. 11 130 

xliv. 28 ff ....... 133 

xlv. 19, 20 132 

xlv. 21, 25 133 

xlv. 23-25 124 

xlvi. 13 ff 133 

xlvi. 24 130 

xlvii 244 

xlvii. 1-12 123 

xlviii. 11-13 131 

DANIEL. 

ii. . . 227 

iv. 30 ...... . Ill note 

v. 2ff 227 

v. 10 226 

v. 28 228 

v. 30 ......... 226 

vi. 8, 12. 15 228 

vii 227 

vii. 6 . . . i 228 

vii. 13 238 

viii. 8, 22 228 

viii. 14 225 

viii. 20 228 

ix. 2 40, 239 

ix. 24 ff 239 

ix. 24-27 229, 239 

x. 1 225 

xi 240 

xi. 2 225 

xi. 40-45 225 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



367 



DANIEL, (continued). Page 

xii. 1,2 229 

xii. 7 225 

xii. 11, 12 225 

HOSEA. 

i.-iii 113 

i. 2 323 

i. 2 ff 61, 320 

i. 4 324, 348 

i. 6, 7 329, 348 

i. 9 221, 245, 330 

i. 10 143 

i. 11 230, 330 

ii. 3 . . . . 324 

ii. 5, 8, 13 271 

ii. 7 323 

ii. 11 115 

ii. 13 323, 325 

ii. 15 . . . . 113, 320, 328 note 

ii. 19, 20 113 

iii. 4 117 note, 334 

iii. 5 159, 330 

iv. 1 114 

iv. 1, 2 ........ 322 

iv. 1, 6 323 

iv. 3 324 

iv. 4 116 note, 318 

iv. 4, 5, 6 318 note 

iv. 5 317 

iv. 6 115, 317 

iv. 8 . . • 116 

iv. 11 322 

iv. 12, 17 323 

iv. 13 114, 163, 329 

iv. 15 ... . 158, 166, 294, 329 

iv. 16 114 

iv. 19 334 

v. 1 158, 161, 329 

v. 1, 11 320 

v. 6 334 

v. 7 113, 323 

v. 10 116 note 

v. 11 325 

v. 13 323 

v. 15 147, 323 

vi. 4 321, 323 

vi. 5 319, 320 

vi. 6 . .. .111 note, 116, 323, 334 

vi. 7 113, 320, 323 

vi. 11 117 note 

vii. 1 322 

vii. 4, 5 322 

vii. 8 323 

vii. 11 323 



hosea (continued). Page 

vii. 14 334 

viii. 1 115, 317, 320 

viii. 4 159, 323 

viii. 5, 6 293, 325 

viii. 6 294 

viii. 9 323 

viii. 11 . . . 116 note, 158, 329 
viii. 12 . . . 114, 340 and note 

viii. 13 115, 116 note 

viii. 14 230, 323 

x. 3 . . . . 116 note, 324, 334 

x. 3, 4 116 

x. 4 ... . 116 and note, 334 

x. 5 115 

x. 9 114 

x. 10 . . . . 117 note, 328 note 

x. 15 158, 166, 329 

x. 17 323 

x. 1 158, 329 

x. 2, 8 324 

x. 4 . 322 

x. 5 325 

x. 8, 15 158 

x. 9 114 

x. 11 117 note 

x. 12 323 

x. 12, 13 322 

xi. 1 320 

xi. 2 323 

xi. 7 114, 323 

xi. 12 322 

xii. 1 323 

xii. 2 320 

xii. 3, 4 320 

xii. 6 323 

xii. 6-8 . 322 

xii. 9 ... 115, 320, 337 note 

xii. 10 319 

xii. 11 . . 116 note, 158, 166, 329 

xii. 13 57 note, 320 

xiii. 1, 2 113 

xiii. 2 325 

xiii. 4 320 

xiii. 6 323 

xiii. 16 323 

xiv. 2 334 

xiv. 3 323 

xiv. 3, 8 323 

xiv. 4 114, 323 

JOEL. 

ii. 1, 15, 32 157 

ii. 15 ff 119 



368 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



joel (continued). Page 

iii. 4-8 186 

iii. 16, 17, 21 .157 

iii. 18 244 

iii. 19 63 

iii. 19, 20 199 

iii. 21 119 



AMOS. 

i. 2 . . 117 note, 159, 294, 324, 

328, 335 

i. 6-8 185 

ii. 4 115, 317 

ii. 5 230 

ii. 6-8 322 

ii. 7 . . 117 note (bis), 322, 323 

ii. 9 117 note 

ii. 10 . . . . 118, 320, 328 note 

ii. 11 335 

ii. 11, 12 117 note, 319 

ii. 12 335 

iii. 1, 2 320 

iii. 2, 3 151 

iii. 7 319 

iii. 10 322 

iii. 11-15 324 

iii. 14 . . . . 158, 294, 324, 326 

iv. 1 . . . 322 

iv. 4 . 116, 117 note, 158, 166, 294, 

326 

iv. 5 116, 335 

iv. 6, 8-11 . 323 

iv.-6-ll 323 

v. 4, 6 323 

v. 4-6 158, 325 

v. 5 161, 294, 329 

v. 7, 24 322 

v. 10, 12, 15 322 

v. 11 .117 note, 322 

v. 18 185, 323 

v. 21 115 

v. 21 if 99, 118 

v. 21-23 325 

v. 22 115 

v. 25 . . . . 118 (bis), 328 note 

v. 26 294 

v. 27 324 

vi. 1 323 

vi. 4-6 322 

vi. 12 .322 

vi. 14 117 note 

vii. 9 158, 329 

vii. 12 318 

vii. 15, 16 319 



amos (continued). Page 

viii. 4-6 ... ' 322 

viii. 5 115, 117 note 

viii. 14 . . . 158, 161, 293, 326 

ix. 8 324 

ix. 10 .220 

ix. 11 159, 230 

ix. 13 H7 note 

ix. 14 .... 117 note (bis) 



OBADIAH. 

vers. 16, 17, 21 157 

ver. 18 199 

MICAH. 

i- 5 • • 157 

Hi. 10 Ill note 

iii. 12 230 

iv. 1 ff 119 

iv. 1, 2, 7 . 157 

iv. 10 182, 232, 353 

v. 5, 6 213 

vi. 8 99, 110, 118 

vii. 14 165 

NAHUM. 

iii. 8-10 201, 213 

HABAKKUK. 

i. 5-10 233 

ii. 2 58 note 

ii- 3 185 

ii. 12 ...... . Ill note 

iii. 3 279 

iii. 3, 4 . . 280 

ZEPHANIAH. 

i. 8, 9 ...... 127 note 

ii. 4-7 , . , 186 

ii. 9, 10 198 

ZECHARIAH. 

i.-viii 237 

ii. 11 221 

vii. 5 132 

viii. 19 132 

ix.-xi 237 

ix. 5-7 186 

xii.-xiv 233 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



369 



zechariah (continued). Page 

xiv. 8 244 

xiv. 21 221 

MALACHI. 

i. 3, 4 . . . 198 

i. 11 120, 245 

ii. 4-8 128 note 

iii. 3 128 note 

iii. 7 148 

iv. 4 280 

MATTHEW. 
IX. 9 61 

xxiv 212 

LUKE. 

xiv. 26 91 note 

xix. 40 ....... 210 

JOHN. 

xiii. 23 ....... . 61 

xxi. 25 210 

ACTS. 

xxi. 3-6 196 

I. TIMOTHY. 

iv. 3 290 



revelation. Page 

vii. 5 ff 124 

xi. 8 215 

xxii. 1 ff 124 



I. MACCABEES. 

iii. 46 163 

iv. 47 313 

vi. 53 133 

II. MACCABEES. 

viii. 28, 30 57 note 



JOSEPHUS. 



Antiq., x. 9. 7 . . 
Antiq., x. 11. 1 
Antiq., xiii. 10. 3 . 
Antiq., xiv. 16. 4 . 
Against Apion, i. 19 
Against Apion, i. 21 
Against Apion, i. 22 
Jewish War, v. 5. 6 



198, 199, 206 
... 197 
... 133 
. . . 133 
. 187, 205 
... 196 
... 313 
... 313 



HERODOTUS. 

ii. 58 209 

ii. 177 200 

ii. 177 (Rawlinson's Notes) . 204 

iii. 2, 16 201 



University Press: John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. 



530 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, 

October, 1880. 



NEW BOOKS 



AND NEW EDITIONS OF IMPORTANT BOOKS, 

PUBLISHED BY 

ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS. 



k * Any Book in this Catalogue, not too large to go by mail, will be sent postage 
prepaid, on receipt of the price. 



The End of a Coil. A Story. By the author of the " Wide Wide 
World." 717 pp. $1.75. 

My Desire. A Tale. By the author of the " Wide Wide World." 
$1.75. 

Christie's Old Organ, Saved at Sea, and Little Faith. 

In one volume. $1.00. 

Christ and His Religion. By Rev. John Reid, author of 
" Voices of the Soul," &c. $1.50. 

The Sim, Moon, and Stars. By Agnes Gilberne. Miistrated. 
12rao. $1.50. 

The Gentle Heart. By Rev. Alex. Macleod, D.D., author of 
" Wonderful Lamp," &c. $1.25. 

The Clip of Consolation ; or, Bright Messages for the Sick- 
Bed. $1.25. 

In ChristO. By J. R. Macduff, D.D. 

Family Prayers. By J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. 

Voices of Hope and Gladness. By Ray Palmer, D.D $1.50. 

Modern Scottish Pnlpit. Sermons by Scottish Ministers. 
8vo. $1.50. 

* Murdock*s Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. A cheap 
edition. Three volumes in one. 1,461 pp. $o.00. 



BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 



Nora Crena. By L. T. Meade. $1.25. 

Andrew Harvey's Wife. By L. T. Meade. $1.25. 

* Pool's Annotations. 3 vols. Royal 8vo. 3,077 pages. In cloth. 

Price, $7.50. (Half the former price.) 

" Pool's Annotations are sound, clear, and sensible; and, taking for all in all, I 
place him at tbe bead of Englisb commentators on tbe wbole Bible." — Rev. J. C. Ryle. 

* Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible. 5 vols., 

quarto. (Sheep, $20.00.) Cloth, $15.00. Another edition in 9 vols., 
octavo. Cloth, $20.00. 

Rev. C. H. Spurgeon says: "First among tbe mighty for general usefulness wo 
are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word,— Mattbew Henry. 
He is most pious and pitby, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and 
trustworthy. ... I venture to say that no better investment can be made by a 
minister than that peerless exposition." 

* Dr. McCosh's Works. New and neat edition (reduced from 

$15.00). 5 vols., 8vo., uniform, $10.00. Comprising: — 

1. Divine Government. 3. The Intuitions op the Mind. 

2. Typical Forms. 4. Defence of Fundamental Truth. 

5. The Scottish Philosophy. 

Any volume sold separately at $2.00. 

" Thousands of earnest, thoughtful men have found treasures of argument, illus- 
tration, and learning in these pages, with which their minds and hearts have been 
enriched and fortified for better work and wider influences." — N. Y. Observer. 

Dr. McCosh's Logic. 12mo $1.50 

Christianity and Positivism. 12mo . . 1.75 

*Dr. Merle D'Aubigne's History. 13 vols., uniform f 12.50, 
viz. : — 

* History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century. 

5 vols. Brown cloth. In a box. $4.50. 

* History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin 8 vols. 

Brown cloth. In a box. Reduced from S16.00 to $8.00. 

"The work is now complete; and these later volumes, together with Ibe original 
five, form a library relating to the Reformation of incalculable value and of intense 
interest. The pen of this master of history gave a charm to every thing that he 
touched. — N. Y. Observer. 



ROBERT CARTER &> BROTHERS. 



Guide to Family Devotion. By the Rev. Alexander Fletcher, 
D.D. Royal quarto, with 10 steel plates (half morocco, $7.50; Tur- 
key morocco, $12.00), cloth, gilt, and gilt edges, $5.00. 

"The more we look over the volume the more we admire it, and the more 
heartily feel to commend it to families and devout Christians. It is emphatically a 
book of devotion, from the standpoint of an intelligent, broad-minded Christian 
minister, who has here expressed many of the deepest emotions and wants of the 
soul. The selections of Scripture and the hymns are all admirably adapted to in- 
crease devotion ; and the prayers are such as can but aid the suppliant, even when 
not uttered from his precise standpoint, and are especially valuable to many heads 
of families who find it difficult to frame words for themselves in conducting family 
Worship." — Journal and Messenger. 

The A. Ij. O. E. Library. In 55 vols., 18mo, in a neat wooden 
case, $40.00. 

" All these stories have the charm and pure Christian character which have 
made the name of A. L. O. E. dear to thousands of homes." — Lutheran. 

" The writings of this author have become a standard, and the mystic imprint, 
A. L. O. E., is ample assurance that the truth of the Gospel is beneath." — 
Episcopalian. 

Bickersteth (Rev. E. H.). Yesterday, To-day, and Forever. 
A Poem. Pocket edition, .50 ; 16mo, $1.00 ; 12mo, $1.50. 

"If any poem is destined to endure in the companionship of Milton's hitherto 
matchless epic, we believe it will be 'Yesterday, To-day, and Forever.' " — Lor 
don Globe. 

Butler (Rev. William Archer). Sermons. 2 vols., $2.50. 
Lectures on Ancient Philosophy. 2 vols., $2.50. 

" A few weeks ago we spoke of the reprinting, by Carter & Brothers, of the Ser- 
mons of Archer Butler, a body of preaching so strong and massive as to be really 
wonderful. The 'Lectures on Ancient Philosophy' that are now added, were de- 
livered at the University of Dublin, about the year 1840, when the author was 
scarcely thirty years old." — Watchman. 

The Book and Its Story. 12mo. $1.50. 

Fresh Leaves from the Book and Its Story. 12mo. 
$1.50. 

" Let any one who is inclined to think the bare Scriptures ' dry ' reading, peruse 
them in connection with a volume like this, and they will be clothed to him with a 
new life. He will learn how the separate books of the Bible were, as it were, built 
into one another, and made to form a glorious whole : he will read intelligently 
and with deep interest." — Keystone. 



4 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 

Bonar (Horatius, D.D.). Hymns of Faith and Hope. 3 vols., 
18mo. $2.25. 

Bible Thoughts and Themes. 6 vols. 12mo, viz. : — 

Genesis $2.00 Acts, &c $2.00 

Old Testament . . . 2.00 Lesser Epistles . . . 2.00 

Gospels 2.00 Revelation 2.00 

" With no attempt at exposition, except what is found in comparing Scripture 
with Scripture, and drawing illustrations and means of impressing rich gospel 
truth from almost every source, the author proceeds with theme upon theme, giv- 
ing floods of edifying and comforting light from beginning to end. It is a good 
book for the private Christian to have on his table for frequent use, and ministers 
will often find in it that which will be suggestive and useful." — Christian In- 
structor. 

Way of Peace . . $0.50 The Rent Veil $1.25 

Way of Holiness . . .60 My Old Letters .... 2.00 

Night of Weeping . .50 Hymns of the Nativity, gilt, 1.00 

vIorning of Joy . . .60 The Christ of God . . . 1.25 

Follow the Lamb . . .40 Truth and Error .... .60 

The Everlasting Righteousness .... $0.60 

Chalmers (Thomas, D.I>.). Sermons. 2 vols, in one. $3.00. 

Cowper (Wm.). The Task. Illustrated by Birket Foster. $3.50. 

Cuyler (Rev. T. Lu). 

Pointed Papers $1.50 

Thought Hives 1.50 

Empty Crib 1.00 

V Dr. Cuyler holds steadily the position which he reached years ago, as the best 
writer of pointed, racy, religious articles in our country." — Presbyterian. 

Dick (John, D.D.). Lectures on Theology. 8vo. $3.00. 

" It is, as a whole, superior to any other system of theology in our language." ' 
Christian Journal. 

Dickson (Rev. Alexander, D.D.). 

All About Jesus $2.00 

Beauty for Ashes 2.00 

"His book is a ' bundle of myrrh,' and will be specially enjoyed by those who 
are in trouble." —Rev. Dr. W. M. Taylor. 

"Luscious as a honeycomb with sweetness drawn from God's word." — Rev. 
Dr. Cuyler. 



ROBERT CARTER &» BROTHERS. 5 

Dykes (Oswald, D.D.), on the Sermon on the Mount. 

3 vols., $3.00. 

Abraham, the Friend of God ....... $1.50 

" We are ever and anon surprised by some new view or fresh thought that 
never had occurred to us in this connection. The book (Abraham) is a thoughtful, 
scholarly production, in vigorous English." — N. Christian Advocate. 

* Edwards (Jonathan). Works. In 4 vols., octavo. $6.00. 

" I consider Jonathan Edwards the greatest of the sons of men." — Robert Hall. 

Fraser (Rev. Donald). Synoptical Lectures on the Books of the 
Bible. 3 vols., $6.00. 

" Dr. Fraser has observed, like many others of us, the mischief which results 
from cutting the Bible into fragments, and using it piecemeal. In these volumes 
he discourses of the Bible at large, indicates the scope of each book, and furnishes 
a brief digest of its contents. The design was in itself most laudable, and it has 
been well carried out." — Spurgeon. 

Green (Prof. Wm. Henry, D.D.). The Argument of the Book 
of Job Unfolded. 12ino. $1.75. 

" That ancient composition so marvellous in beauty, and so rich in philosophy^ 
is here treated in a thoroughly analytical manner, and new depths and grander 
proportions of the divine original portrayed. It is a book to stimulate research " 
— Methodist Recorder. 

Guthrie (Thomas, D.D.). Life and Works. 11 vols. $15.00. 

" His pages glow with the deep piety, the Scriptural beauty, the rich imagery, 
and the tender pathos which breathed from his lips." — N. Y. Observer. 

Hamilton (James, D.D.). Select Works. 4 vols. $5.00. Con- 
taining The Royal Preacher ; Mount of Olives ; Pearl of Parables •, 
Lamp and Lantern ; Great Biography ; Harp on the Willows ; Lake 
of Galilee ; Emblems from Eden ; Life in Earnest. 

"Those familiar with the works of Dr. Hamilton will perceive that this set of 
volumes contains the choice gold from the author's mine. They are put up in a 
neat box, and sold at the low price of $5 for the set." — Interior. 

Hamlin (Cyrus). Among the Turks. 12mo. $1.50. 
Hanna (Rev. William, D.D.). Life of Christ. 3 vols. 12mo, 
$4.50. 

" We can heartily commend the ' Life of our Lord,' by Dr. Hanna."— Congre- 
gational Quarterly. 

" Besides the beauty of the style and the careful scholarship which mark these 
volumes, we cannot too warmly commend them for their deep piety and hearty 
enforcement of the doctrines of Christianity." — N. Y. Observer. 



BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 



Hill (George). Lectures on Divinity. 8vo. $2.50. 

" The candor and fairness of this author are remarkable, an unfailing indica- 
tion of real greatness." — Christian Mirror. 

Hodge (Charles, D.D.). Commentaries. 

On Romans. 12mo $1.75 

On Ephesians. 12mo , . 1.75 

On Corinthians. 2 vols. 12mo 3.50 

Rev. C. H. Spurgeon says: "Most valuable. With no writer do we more fully 
agree. The more we use Hodge, the more we value him. This applies to all his 
Commentaries." 

Hodge (Rev. A. A., D.D.). Outlines of Theology. Revised and 
Enlarged Edition. 8vo. $3.00. 

"At its first publication in 1860, this work attracted much attention, and ever 
since it has had a large sale, and been carefully studied both in this country and in 
Great Britain. It has been translated into Welsh and modern Greek, and has 
been used as a text-book in several theological schools. Prepared originally in 
good part from notes taken by the author from his distinguished father's lectures, 
with the assistance of standard theological writers, after fourteen years of service 
as a theological instructor, he has, with increased knowledge and experience as a 
teacher, embodied in this new and enlarged edition not only the treasures of the 
volume as it first appeared, but the rich results of his additional studies and inves- 
tigations. This new edition contains fifty per cent more of matter than the former 
one. Two chapters have been dropped, and five new ones have been added." — 
Presbyterian Banner. 

Holt (Emily Sarah). Historical Tales. 

Isoult Barry. 12mo $1.50 

Robin Tremayne. 12mo .......... 1.50 

The Well in the Desert. 16mo ...... 1.25 

Ashcliffe Hall. 16mo .......... 1.25 

Verena ; A Tale. 12mo . 1.50 

The White Rose of Langley. 12mo .... 1.50 

Imogen. 12mo 1.50 

Clare Avery. 12mo 1.50 

Lettice Eden. 12mo . 1.50 

For the Master's Sake. 16mo 1.00 

Margery's Son. 12mo 1.50 

Lady Sybil's Choice. 12mo 1.50 

The Maiden's Lodge. 12mo 1.25 

•* Whether it is regarded in its historical or its religious aspect, ' Isoult Barry of 
Wynscote ' is the finest contribution to English literature, of its peculiar class, 
which has been made in the present century." — American Baptist. 



ROBERT CARTER 6- BROTHERS. J 

*Horiie (Thomas Hartwell). Introduction to the Study of the 
Bible. Royal 8vo. 2 vols, in one. Sheep. $5.00. 

"It Is a work of gigantic labor. The results of the research and erudition of 
Biblical scholars, of all countries and in all times, are faithfully garnered." — N. I • 
Evangelist. 

* Howe (John). Complete Works. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. $5.00. 

"Possessed of the learning ofj Cud worth, the evangelical piety of Owen, and the 
fervor of Baxter, with a mind of larger dimensions than what belonged to any of 
those distinguished individuals, every thing which fell from his pen is worthy 
of immortality." — Orme^s Bib. Bib. 

Jacobus (Melancthon W., D.D.). Notes, Critical and Ex* 
planatory. 

Genesis. 12mo $1.50 

Matthew and Mark. 12rao 1 50 

Luke and John. 12mo 1.50 

Acts. 12mo 1.50 

Drs. Hodge, Green, and others of Princeton, say: " The excellent Commentaries 
of Dr. Jacobus have deservedly attained a high reputation, and their wide circula- 
tion proves how well they are adapted to the wants of both ministers and laymen. 
They present, in a brief compass, the results of extensive erudition, abound in judi- 
cious exposition and pertinent illustration, and are, moreover, distinguished by 
doctrinal soundness, evangelical character, and an eminently devout spirit." 

Jay (Rev. William). Morning and Evening Exercises. 2 vols. 
$2.00. The same in 4 vols., larger type, $5.00. 

" We know of nothing more pure and Scriptural in sentiment, nothing more 
elevated and devotional in spirit, nothing more simple and beautiful than these 
reflections on the lessons from the Bible." — Christian Observer. 

Job (The Book of). Illustrated with Fifty Engravings after 
Drawings by John Gilbert. With Introduction, various Readings 
and Notes, by James Hamilton, D.D. Beautifully printed and 
bound. $4.50. 

"The Book of Job, the 'oldest poem in the world,' has been illustrated with 
fifty engravings from drawings by John Gilbert, with variety and fancy which he 
nas rarely, if ever, excelled, more especially in the Eastern character of the scenery, 
and the characteristics of its animal life, the supernatural incidents, and locality s 
of the Patriarch's life, its vivid pictures of the husbandman, the warrior, the 
traveller, the sportsman, the stately magnate, and the starving outcast of that 
departed era." — Illustrated London News. 



8 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 

KittO (John). Bible Illustrations. 4 vols., thick 12mo. $7.00. 

" They are not exactly commentaries, but what marvellous expositions you 
have there! You have reading more interesting than any novel that was ever writ- 
ten, and as instructive as the heaviest theology. The matter is quite attractive 
and fascinating, and yet so weighty, that the man who shall study those volumes 
thuroughly will not fail to read his Bible intelligently and with growing interest." 
— Spur g eon. 

*L<ee (William). The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures: Its 
Nature and Proof. 8vo. $2.50. 

"We consider 'Lee on Inspiration' as beyond all comparison superior to any 
work on the subject yet issued in our language." — Church Journal. 

Leightoil (Bishop). Complete Works. 8vo. $3.00. 

" Archbishop Leighton stands in the front rank of English theological writers. 
His deep piety, meek Christian spirit, clear perception, and metaphysical acumen, 
give him a place in which he stands alone without a rival. There is no English 
edition that equals this in fulness, or in the indexes, and in fact this leaves nothing 
more to be desired." —Zion's Herald. 

Lewis (Prof. Tayler). The Six Days of Creation. 12mo. $1.50. 
A professor in one of our colleges writes : " Prof. Lewis's penetrating insight into 
the conceptions of that remote age in which the Book of Genesis was written, the 
thorough scholarship with which he has elucidated these conceptions, and the vigor 
of reasoning with which he has shown the relation of the Biblical narrative to the 
mythology of the classical ages — these things all combine to stamp upon the book 
a character of originality and profoundness in which it stands alone. There is no 
other like it. It is worth all else that has been written on the subject. Some ot 
the passages, too, in which he describes the moral dignity and glory of the inspired 
narrative of the Bible, are among the finest in our literature." 

Lord ("Willis, D.D.). Christian Theology tor the People. 8vo. 
$2.50. 

"I do not hesitate in expressing the opinion that this work is, so far as I know, 
the best book in existence for the purpose of popular instruction in theology." — 
Dr. E. P. Humphreys. 

*Murdock (James, D.D.). Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. 
Translated. 3 vols. 8vo. $5.00. 

" As a text-book it is needed by all our theological students, and should be in 
every well-furnished library. We are glad to see a new edition of it, in three hand- 
some volumes, on good paper, and neatly bound in cloth, at the very low price of 
$5." — American Presbyterian. 

Translation of Syriac Peshito Version or the New Testa- 

ment. $2.50. 

" It is a book not only for the learned, but for all who wish to read and under- 
stand the Scriptures." — K. Y. Observer 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



,rtl 



